On 30/04/2015 00:24, "Niclas Hedhman" <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote:
>But may I suggest the other way around?? Can't Neo4j have a Tinkerpop >module at their end, which Tinkerpop advertise to be available for those >that can live with the GPL/AGPL limitations? That would make this a >non-issue, and IIUIC fits well within the conceptuals of Tinkerpop. +1 I also thinks there is a vendor neutrality argument to be made here as well Tinkerpop already expects vendors other than Neo4j to provide their own implementations themselves so why should the project support a specific vendors implementation as part of the core? Is this not favouring one vendor over another? If Neo4j provides the implementation they can do so under whatever license terms they prefer and Apache Tinkerpop does not have to worry about this Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
