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

Re: Subversion/Neon License question

From: Kevin P. Fleming <kpfleming_at_digium.com>
Date: 2006-01-27 20:27:48 CET

Erik Huelsmann wrote:

>>Also note that the FSF would _really_ prefer this language to stop being
>>used; the official name of that license is now the Lesser General Public
>>License, not 'Library'. There _is_ a 'Library General Public License',
>>but its use is strongly discouraged.
> Given the second sentence, I'd say you're plain wrong in the first sentence:
> If it refers to an existing license, the author shouldn't stop referring to
> that license with its real name, shouldn't it?

Sorry, poor choice of wording. I wrote the first sentence before doing
the more extended research for the second one...

You are correct: there is a 'Library' GPL, and Neon could be licensed
under that (I haven't checked). It would be preferable for it to be
under the 'Lesser' GPL instead, but that is off-topic for this list
anyway :-)

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jan 27 20:28:12 2006

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.