On Nov 10, 2009, at 7:10 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > 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)
Not yet though. It still fails in places that neon works. Blair --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
