On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:59, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@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) Cheers, -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
