On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@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-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
