Re: LGPL license violation (Neon) on Windows

Mark Phippard wrote:
> It sounds to me like if Subversion distributed Neon as a DLL, I would
> have to do nothing more.

Not at all. There's no difference between static and dynamic linking
here, and LGPL explicitly says there's nont. You'd still have to provide
access to machine-readable source of Neon, as per paragraph 4 of LGPL
2.1. Since we don't modify Neon, or rather don't use anything but
released versions, we're not really required to distribute the source
with the binaries. In my ANAL opinion.

-- Brane

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-05-10 02:49:19 CEST