incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion
Date Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:28:42 GMT
The binaries doesn't matter, Apache releases source code, licensed under
Apache license v2.0. And we only distribute certain licensed dependencies.

As Greg said, we need to provide solutions that does not force downstream
users into the (L)GPL world. So, a project that requires these dependencies
are a no-no. Optionality is key here.

As for the virality of some licenses it is also important to ensure that it
doesn't leak into Apache code bases. I don't think this is even close to be
the case here.

IMHO, this looks like a simple case and legal-discuss@ should be able to
provide a definitive answer quickly.

IIRC, redistributing the LGPL code would not be allowed.

-- Niclas

On 10 Nov 2009 23:17, "Mark Phippard" <markphip@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote: > On
Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:...
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.

--
Thanks

Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To
unsubscribe, e-mail: gener...

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message