incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Blair Zajac <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion
Date Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:16:56 GMT

On Nov 10, 2009, at 7:10 AM, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:59, C. Michael Pilato <> 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.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message