On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_mit.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 17:27 -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> In the process of going through this with Brian he looked at our
>> Windows download and said "I do not see Neon in this". I pointed out
>> that this is because we have always statically linked Neon on Windows.
>> Brian pointed out that we cannot do this, it violates the terms of
>> the LGPL.
>
> Which term does it violate? Looking over the LGPL, I think we're fine
> since we're providing source code for all of Subversion. A
> closed-source derivative of Subversion might be in a different
> situation.
I do not really want to bog down in semantics as this is likely a
smallish change (for the one or two people that understand the Windows
build system). That said I think what Brian said was that the user
has the to have the right and ability to replace the library with a
different version and if we statically link we take away that right.
Now I think you can still statically link provided you make available
the source code or the compiled object code so that the user can do
this. I was under the impression it needs to be in the same
distribution, which in our case is not true.
>> They cannot support LGPL because their license allows the package to
>> be relicensed commercially and LGPL does not permit that.
>
> That's also false, although the LGPL certainly applies some constraints.
Is it worth taking up with the foundation's lawyers? Are you aware of
any precedent or docs we could point them to?
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-05-09 00:00:32 CEST