"Mark Phippard" <markphip_at_gmail.com> writes:
> Is it worth taking up with the foundation's lawyers? Are you aware of
> any precedent or docs we could point them to?
It's not the FSF that matters here anyway, it's Neon's copyright holder,
isn't it? (Which is Joe Orton and a few other people.)
Given the way we distribute Subversion+Neon on Windows, I'd be surprised
if Joe felt we were in any way violating the license, and even more
surprised if he felt that way and were right :-). Unless and until one
of the copyright holders complains, is it really worth spending any time
worrying about this?
Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_MIT.EDU> writes
> It's generally not worth talking with lawyers about stuff, so no. I
> can't really provide any references since you haven't defined
> "relicensed commercially." The LGPL is specifically designed to allow a
> work to be used in combination with proprietary software, as long as you
> provide the necessary machinery to empower a user to modify the LGPL
> portions of the work within any binaries you distribute. That might be
> distasteful to a commercial software provider but it's certainly a far
> cry from "the LGPL does not permit that."
Note that "commercial" != "proprietary". No free software license
prohibits commercialization; some prohibit proprietization. I guess
where "commercial" was used in this thread, "proprietary" was meant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 00:26:35 CEST