[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: Daniel Berlin <dberlin_at_dberlin.org>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 18:15:39 -0400

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Ours (and any modifications to neon, but i figiure we have none)

> 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?
If they are linking statically, yes.

> --
> 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 2008-05-12 00:15:53 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.