Re: LGPL license violation (Neon) on Windows

On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 06:32:29PM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> Just to be clear on the part of my message you are quoting. The
> Eclipse Foundation does not allow any LGPL code no matter how it is
> provided.

Eh? Eclipse *includes* code licensed under the LGPL from Gtk+/GNOME; the
top-level about.html in the Eclipse binary .tar.gz for Linux says so
explicitly, I just verified this.

> So this part of the message was really different then whether we are
> properly packaging it for Windows. Even if we are doing it perfectly,
> Eclipse still would not take it.
>
> My only concern is how much we care about our downstream users and
> distributors. If our build system produces output that forces them to
> either:
>
> a) make their own patch to the build process to do it "right"
> b) create unnecessary obligations to provide source code

You've read the Berkeley DB license too, right? (it places greater
restrictions on downstream users than the LGPL, in this respect)

joe

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-05-09 10:41:37 CEST