[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: Mark Phippard <markp_at_softlanding.com>
Date: 2006-01-27 20:29:21 CET

"Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com> wrote on 01/27/2006 02:27:48 PM:

> Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> >>Also note that the FSF would _really_ prefer this language to stop
> >>used; the official name of that license is now the Lesser General
> >>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
> > 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 :-)

This seems to explain it all:


The two licenses are the same, they just changed the name.


Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. and SoftLanding Europe Plc by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jan 27 20:30:30 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.