incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hyrum K. Wright" <hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion
Date Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:17:39 GMT

On Nov 10, 2009, at 9:16 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:59, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I certainly understand why license issues would be a concern.  But I could
>>> use an education about why this particular case matters.  We currently ship
>>> Neon in a separate tarball from Subversion's core code for the convenience
>>> of our users, but if that's a problem, we can stop doing so.  Subversion
>>> doesn't require Neon.  Or Serf.  You can have a perfectly valid, working,
>>> Subversion client and server that doesn't use a DAV layer at all.  The
>>> Subversion community has never released binaries -- ever -- not do we plan
>>> to.  So users and package maintainers are free to assemble Subversion with
>>> the optional bits they care to provide for their consumers.
>>> 
>>> Igor, is there a particular concern that you can elaborate on here if only
>>> for my education?
>> 
>> If the Apache software is *non-functional* without the LGPL software,
>> then you are effectively requiring downstream users to link themselves
>> into the LGPL licensing.
>> 
>> Since Subversion does not require any LGPL to function, then we should
>> be just fine. I plan to run this past legal-discuss for verification
>> (along with our optional GNOME, KDE, and BDB dependencies). I seem to
>> recall from the legal web pages there is no specific mention of our
>> case, so wanted to double-check and then possible add our use-case to
>> those pages.
>> 
>> Regarding serf and Neon, I think that serf will be just fine to have
>> as a default. It has been totally functional for many of us (cmpilato
>> is a serf skeptic :-P)
> 
> He is not the only one :)
> 
> That said, I think the point is why should the default matter?  We can
> either optionally use Neon or we cannot.  Even if Neon is the default,
> if someone builds with only Serf then it becomes the default.
> 
> As Mike says, we do not provide binaries so we will not be asking to
> distribute any of these libraries.  We will need to find out if it is
> OK to still supply our dependencies tarball for convenience.

And if we can't ship the deps tarballs, you won't find me (the current release manager) shedding
any tears.  I don't have any statistics to back it up, but I tend to thinks the deps tarball
is pretty underutilized.  I don't think it would have a negative impact on our users or release
process.

-Hyrum
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message