On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
No, this is an mutually exclusive or.
It says
"either provide the source *OR* make it replaceable".
By providing the source, you do not need to make the library replaceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 19:29:52 CEST