Marcus Rueckert <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote on 10/19/2006 09:14:01 AM:
> > We have been in the process of moving the Subclipse project to
> > and making it an official Eclipse project. As part of this process we
> > have had to undergo a legal review of all of our code by the Eclipse
> > Foundation lawyers. Since we rely on JavaHL, this also means
> > code has to be reviewed by the lawyers. We were told upfront there is
> > chance they will accept Neon because it is LGPL. I told them about
> > which would be OK. For me, this means I'd just have to make my own
> > binary builds using Serf since that is not how the "official builds"
> > currently made.
> > Anyway, since we would have to rely on Serf, I'd love to see it made
> > default so that it is getting more attention. And if we get
> > boosts as well, even better.
> why is lgpl a problem for them?
*shrug* I am not a lawyer, but I guess they do not view it as compatible
with the EPL. The svn code is not going to be in our repository or
anything, but we do want to be able to distribute svn binaries, as we do
now with Subclipse. And I guess if we want to do that, then they feel the
need to approve all of it. I doubt they are going to accept the Sleepycat
license either, but that wouldn't be too big of an impact for us to not
include that. Other than that it is a bitch to build Win32 without it.
I guess from the Eclipse Foundation's point of view, they feel that
someone like IBM or Borland should be able to take Eclipse and make their
commercial IDE distribution without having any "surprise" license items
Being a natural troublemaker, I pointed out to the lawyers that CVS is GPL
licensed, and Eclipse has always included a CVS client. They wrote the
code themselves in Java, but it would be an interesting legal test of the
GPL to see if you can reverse engineer a GPL product and license it
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Thu Oct 19 15:22:06 2006