[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 18:17:17 -0400

Actually, the LGPL (v2.1 at least) does differentiate between static
and dynamic linking.
It makes it legal to not ship source to your app as long as you make
the LGPL'd library replaceable.

See section 6.

Alternative to doing that, you can provide source or object files to
your entire application, so it can be relinked.

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Branko ╚ibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
>> It sounds to me like if Subversion distributed Neon as a DLL, I would
>> have to do nothing more.
> Not at all. There's no difference between static and dynamic linking here,
> and LGPL explicitly says there's nont. You'd still have to provide access to
> machine-readable source of Neon, as per paragraph 4 of LGPL 2.1. Since we
> don't modify Neon, or rather don't use anything but released versions, we're
> not really required to distribute the source with the binaries. In my ANAL
> opinion.
> -- Brane
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 00:17:27 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.