Re: [Subclipse-dev] Question about the svnClientAdaptor

On 8/6/07, Thomas Hallgren <thomas@tada.se> wrote:
> > Subversion is not tainted by GPL code. SVNKit has a license that is a
> > little like the GPL, but Subversion does not have that problem.
> >
> >
> I would not consider it tainted either but the people dealing with IP at
> Eclipse.org seems to have a different opinion regarding JavaHL.

I do not think that is true at all. I saw your message in one of the
Eclipse newgroups and started to reply and then deleted it.

We did not withdraw our proposal because we did not think Subversion
would get approved. There were a lot of reasons. In this area, the
reason was that we just did not want to sit on our hands for 6 months
while they review every line of code in a major open source product
that has dependencies on lots of other major open source projects.
And then go through that again every time there is a new version of
something. It just is not worth it.

There are just two Subversion dependencies that are likely to not be allowed:

Neon - LPGL license. There is a replacement option called Serf that
is Apache licensed.
BerkeleyDB - Sleepycat license. You can build Subversion without
this, and it is not really needed in an Eclipse plug-in.

-- 
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subclipse.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subclipse.tigris.org