Re: LGPL license violation (Neon) on Windows

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com> wrote:
> "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?

Just to be clear on the part of my message you are quoting. The
Eclipse Foundation does not allow any LGPL code no matter how it is
provided. So this part of the message was really different then
whether we are properly packaging it for Windows. Even if we are
doing it perfectly, Eclipse still would not take it.

My only concern is how much we care about our downstream users and
distributors. If our build system produces output that forces them to
either:

a) make their own patch to the build process to do it "right"
b) create unnecessary obligations to provide source code

I'll just go back to Subclipse. We are just passing along the
binaries that this project posts. Does the way those binaries are
built create obligations for Subclipse to make the Subversion source
code available in our packaging?

-- 
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