On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 4:41 AM, Joe Orton <jorton_at_redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 06:32:29PM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Eh? Eclipse *includes* code licensed under the LGPL from Gtk+/GNOME; the
> top-level about.html in the Eclipse binary .tar.gz for Linux says so
> explicitly, I just verified this.
I hope I did not give the impression that I agreed with the Eclipse
Foundation. I pulled our proposal for moving Subclipse over to
Eclipse essentially over this. It was clearly just not worth the
hassle to push them on it. Not to mention that we could never even
issue a new Subclipse release when something like SVN 1.5 comes out,
until all of the SVN code went through an IP review process.
>> 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
>
> You've read the Berkeley DB license too, right? (it places greater
> restrictions on downstream users than the LGPL, in this respect)
Are you bringing this up in the context of Eclipse Foundation or just
downstream users in general? I do not have any doubt that Eclipse
would not allow BDB, but that is also an easy dependency to remove,
especially for what amounts to client-only software. In terms of
open-source downstream products like Subclipse and TortoiseSVN, it
seems like the way we currently distribute it as a DLL is in
compliance. I am not sure what the burden is for closed-source
distributors but I am mainly concerned with whether we are creating
additional burden for our open source downstream users.
By the way, I am not even saying we are creating this burden. I
posted this here because I was told we were not distributing
Subversion correctly and I wanted to get feedback on that. I have
never really understood why we did not distribute Neon as a DLL in the
first place. It seems kind of arbitrary that it is static when almost
everything else is a DLL.
--
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 15:04:24 CEST