incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion
Date Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:35:48 GMT
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
> 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.

These things all make sense and given that Neon (and the other
dependencies) are all optional then I do not think it should be an
issue.  The question I was asking, is why should it matter what the
default is?  The default only applies to someone that builds a binary
that includes both Neon and Serf.  The subversion project ought to be
able to decide which library is the appropriate default in this
situation.

-- 
Thanks

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

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


Mime
View raw message