[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: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 13:34:07 -0400

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin_at_dberlin.org> wrote:
> 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.

What source do we have to provide? Ours or Neon's? We do provide
both on our site, although I do not think we have ever guaranteed the
Windows binaries were built from our deps zip file.

What about downstream? Does Subclipse, TortoiseSVN, AnkhSVN etc. need
to provide the Subversion and Neon source code too?

Mark Phippard
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 19:34:23 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.