I think it's not really sensible to put something in to
CVS with a GPL compatible license, since the first person
who commits changes, retains copyright on those changes, and
says their changes are only GPL licensed (which with a
GPL compatible license is perfectly allowable and reasonable)
coerces the license on the package to GPL.
You can fork any GPL compatible licensed code to a GPL licensed version in this way, which is the essence of
what it means to be "GPL Compatible" and consequently
I think in the interest of simplicity we should dispense
with the pretext of allowing "GPL compatible" licenses in
CVS.
If we did want to support alternate licenses in the code,
we would probably have to have some way of having people
formally accept that their changes fall under the
compatible license. As it stands we probably should
have people with commit sign something which says
that and code or changes they commit are GPL licensed and
possibly a "copyright disclaimer" (as mentioned in the GPL). See the Zope Contributor Agreement or the Mozilla contributor form for what something like this might look like.
Anyway, I don't want to be too pedantic about this license
stuff, but I think we should get it right.
