[news.eclipse.technology.subversive] Re: [spaces-dev] SVN or CVS?

["Igor Vinnykov" <igor.vinnykov@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Thomas,

Please take a look:

OpenSSL, which has potential incompatible license: 
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1706
Neon has GPL license: https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1707
LibIntl has GPL license: 
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1708

Best regards,
Igor Vinnykov

"Thomas Hallgren" <thomas@xxxxxxx> ???????/???????? ? ???????? ?????????: 
news:47272AF3.1010401@xxxxxxxxxx
> Igor Vinnykov wrote:
>> Hello Thomas,
>>
>> If you want to have more information about licensing issues, which we 
>> had, then you can take a look to IPZilla item 
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1542. In fact, some parts 
>> of Subversion (and JavaHL as well) have GPL licenses, which break their 
>> distribution from eclipse.org.
>>
> I don't think this is correct. It's all LGPL. In some sense you may say 
> that LGPL is a GPL _flavor_ and thereby a GPL but from a legal standpoint 
> there is a huge difference.
>
> I know that some frontpage that describes the products indeed say GPL but 
> when you look at the code, it really isn't. AFAIK, there isn't one single 
> library in SVN that is GPL. It's all LGPL.
>
> Eclipse happily distribute other components that are dependent on LGPL'ed 
> libraries so IMHO, it should be OK for SVN as well.
>
> Please prove me wrong about this. Tell me exactly what library or 
> libraries it is that you consider GPL.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Thomas Hallgren