[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

XEmacs binding

From: Yoshiki Hayashi <yoshiki_at_xemacs.org>
Date: 2001-10-29 12:49:26 CET

I was writing XEmacs binding of svn_client.h last weekend
and easier part is already completed. Harder part like
delta editor and wc_status are not done but it can do
commit, checkeout and so on.

Again, licensing issue comes into play. As IANAL, I don't
really understand the details of viral nature of GNU GPL.
However, as a programmer, I'd like my programs to be used by
as many people as possible and I'm looking for a way to
satisfy most people. Any help would be appreciated.

LICENSES

XEmacs is distributed under GNU GPL 2. APR is distributed
under Apache license 1.1 which is categorized as free
software but incompatible with GNU GPL by FSF.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-lit.html
Subversion is distributed under Subversion License version
1.

PROBLEM

According to GNU GPL 2, you cannot distribute XEmacs
executable linked with APR.

(FSF says nothing about Subversion license but I guess it is
also free software but incompatible with GNU GPL license
because it is simlar to Apache License.)

WORKAROUND

1. GPL applies to *distributing* executable. You can
   compile and link XEmacs with Subversion library on your
   own system.

2. Some says dlopen()'ed library is not derivative of the
   original program. If this is valid, you can distribute
   svn.ell (XEmacs DSO module which provides Lisp interface
   to Subversion library). When you load svn.ell, XEmacs
   will be linked with libapr and so on but it is OK since
   you are not redistributing the whole executable.

So...?

Workaroud 1 is always possible. No one knows workaround 2
is valid or not. However, to make workaround 2 possible,
XEmacs Subversion module must have license other than GNU
GPL.

I'm thinking about adding Subversion module to XEmacs and
allow you to apply GNU GPL or modified BSD license (original
BSD license modulo advertising clause) to the module so that
some Linux distribution or others can redistribute svn.ell
if they think it does not violate GNU GPL. Would this be
reasonable? Is there any better way?

-- 
Yoshiki Hayashi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:46 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.