C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> "No" (... gettext is GPLed, and that's incompatible with the
> Subversion license).
David Waite wrote:
> COPYING says GPL, and RMS has used gettext as the primary example of
> a library which was a good choice for the GPL license vs LGPL.
,----[ http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/gettext/gettext_164.html ]
| * Dependencies over the GPL or LGPL
|
| Some people wonder if using GNU gettext necessarily brings their
| package under the protective wing of the GNU General Public License or
| the GNU Library General Public License, when they do not want to make
| their program free, or want other kinds of freedom. The simplest
| answer is "normally not".
|
| The GNU gettext library, i.e. the contents of libintl, is covered by
| the GNU Library General Public License. The rest of the GNU gettext
| package is covered by the GNU General Public License.
|
| The mere marking of localizable strings in a package, or conditional
| inclusion of a few lines for initialization, is not really including
| GPL'ed or LGPL'ed code. However, since the localization routines in
| libintl are under the LGPL, the LGPL needs to be considered. It gives
| the right to distribute the complete unmodified source of libintl even
| with non-free programs. It also gives the right to use libintl as a
| shared library, even for non-free programs. But it gives the right to
| use libintl as a static library or to incorporate libintl into another
| library only to free software.
`----
We use Neon as LGPL as well - so there *should* be no problem.
Then again, even though that is from the gettext documentation, I am
not entirely convinced that trusting that is enough.
-- Naked
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 29 11:32:29 2004