[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: LGPL license violation (Neon) on Windows

From: <kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 17:45:47 -0500

"Mark Phippard" <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote on 05/08/2008 05:22:16 PM:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_mit.edu> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 18:00 -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> >> 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
> >> build system).
> >
> > Uh, sure, but from a time allocation perspective, "we have to do this
> > we're violating Neon's license" is very different from "it would be
> > if we did this." I don't think we're violating the LGPL.
> I did not really mean to close off discussion, sorry. So can you
> explain why you think we are in compliance, and what it means for
> someone that distributes Subversion? For example, Subclipse and
> AnkhSVN both distribute Subversion binaries on Windows. In the case
> of Subclipse, I use the same binaries that get posted to tigris.

As an FYI, svnkit has some similar "redistribution" clauses...

The third bullet is the most interesting:
"... any software that uses the software that uses
 the software that uses svnkit ..."

A second level of "uses" indirection. First time I ever saw
that one...

(I only mention, because I believe Subclipse also includes svnkit.)

Kevin R.

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 01:20:51 CEST

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.