Re: [Subclipse-dev] Question about the svnClientAdaptor

On 8/6/07, Thomas Hallgren <thomas@tada.se> wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
> > 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 stumbled on this thread when discussing this issue:
>
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/technology-pmc/msg00512.html
>
> Either Janet is not aware that the GPL in question is LGPL or, they
> simply don't allow that either (which would be kind of funny since they
> distribute swt for gtk).

When I talked to the lawyers they did not accept the LGPL either. In
this case, they were incorrectly told that the license for Neon is
GPL, when it is LGPL.

The libintl dependency is not needed. I think that is also LGPL and not GPL.

-- 
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