Home » Eclipse Projects » Subversive » Re: [spaces-dev] SVN or CVS?
| Re: [spaces-dev] SVN or CVS? [message #8410] |
Fri, 03 August 2007 23:18  |
|
Hi Bjorn,
While were on the subject. I have a related question on the IP/licensing
topic.
CVS is developed and released under GPL. The Eclipse CVS client is
clean-room and of course EPL. Yet it implements a GPL'ed protocol and
can only function together with a GPL'ed server installation.
SVN on the other hand, is Apache/BSD style license. The
svnClientAdapter, and the JavaHL CLI, is also Apache/BSD. The Subclipse
and Subversive clients are both EPL. The only part I know has a GPL'ish
license is the optional SVNKit.
From a laymans perspective, it really looks like SVN whould have the
upper hand :-). I know that Subclipse revoked their submission since
they could not make it pass the Eclipse IP barrier for some reason. I
still haven't understood what that reason was. Obviously it must have a
more apparent GPL dependency then the one from the CVS client. What is
it that blocks Subversive?
- thomas
Bjorn Freeman-Benson wrote:
> Given that the Subversive project is the official Eclipse subversion
> interface and that the Subversive project makes use of some GPL code,
> which is a no-no, the Subversive project is currently held up in the
> Eclipse IP review. I suggest that we switch to working with CVS until
> the Subversive legal issues are resolved. Specifically, since the next
> thing we are working on is "Share...", we should Share to a CVS server
> for now.
>
> Thoughts?
> _______________________________________________
> spaces-dev mailing list
> spaces-dev@eclipse.org
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/spaces-dev
|
|
|
| Re: [spaces-dev] SVN or CVS? [message #10005 is a reply to message #8410] |
Tue, 30 October 2007 12:40  |
 Igor Vinnykov
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Hello Thomas,
I have good news - together with Bjorn, Mike and Janet we found solution,
which allows us to start Subversive migration to eclipse.org. It simply
means that Subversive incubation on eclipse.org will be started soon. I
think that it's an answer, which you want to hear :)
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.
The current solution, which we found during Eclipse Summit Europe 2007 is
following (quotation of Bjorn's e-mail):
The Technology PMC deems the Subversion desktop client to be a pre-req of
the Subversive project.
The project, PMC, and EMO assert that there is GPL code contained in the
libraries required by the JavaHL client and therefore JavaHL client is
incompatible with the EPL.
The EMO has stated the Subversion client is an exempt pre-req because it is
(a) pervasive in nature and (b) would reasonably be expected to already be
installed on the user's machine.
The Subversive project should go forward on the assumption that they will
use Subversion desktop client as an pre-installed pre-req for their project
and note this use in the project ip log. (Note: the project may not
distribute the Subversion desktop client from eclipse.org.)
Best regards,
Igor Vinnykov
"Thomas Hallgren" <thomas@tada.se> ???????/???????? ? ???????? ?????????:
news:46B3B7DF.3020003@tada.se...
> Hi Bjorn,
> While were on the subject. I have a related question on the IP/licensing
> topic.
>
> CVS is developed and released under GPL. The Eclipse CVS client is
> clean-room and of course EPL. Yet it implements a GPL'ed protocol and can
> only function together with a GPL'ed server installation.
>
> SVN on the other hand, is Apache/BSD style license. The svnClientAdapter,
> and the JavaHL CLI, is also Apache/BSD. The Subclipse and Subversive
> clients are both EPL. The only part I know has a GPL'ish license is the
> optional SVNKit.
>
> From a laymans perspective, it really looks like SVN whould have the upper
> hand :-). I know that Subclipse revoked their submission since they could
> not make it pass the Eclipse IP barrier for some reason. I still haven't
> understood what that reason was. Obviously it must have a more apparent
> GPL dependency then the one from the CVS client. What is it that blocks
> Subversive?
>
> - thomas
>
>
> Bjorn Freeman-Benson wrote:
>> Given that the Subversive project is the official Eclipse subversion
>> interface and that the Subversive project makes use of some GPL code,
>> which is a no-no, the Subversive project is currently held up in the
>> Eclipse IP review. I suggest that we switch to working with CVS until the
>> Subversive legal issues are resolved. Specifically, since the next thing
>> we are working on is "Share...", we should Share to a CVS server for now.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> _______________________________________________
>> spaces-dev mailing list
>> spaces-dev@eclipse.org
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/spaces-dev
|
|
|
| Re: [spaces-dev] SVN or CVS? [message #10028 is a reply to message #10005] |
Tue, 30 October 2007 13:00 |
|
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
|
|
|
| Re: [spaces-dev] SVN or CVS? [message #10075 is a reply to message #10028] |
Tue, 30 October 2007 13:17 |
Igor Vinnykov
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
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@tada.se> ???????/???????? ? ???????? ?????????:
news:47272AF3.1010401@tada.se...
> 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
|
|
|
| Re: [spaces-dev] SVN or CVS? [message #10096 is a reply to message #10075] |
Tue, 30 October 2007 14:07 |
|
Igor,
Look at:
http://www.webdav.org/neon/
It clearly states that neon is "GNU Library GPL", i.e the LGPL (click on
the link and you get to a page labeled "GNU Lesser General Public
License"). What makes you say that this is GPL?
If you look into the libintl source distribution, you will find two
library licenses ("Copying.lib-2.0" and "Copying-lib-2.1"). Both of them
list the GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, i.e. the LGPL. Further
more, if you look at the source, every single source file has a header
using LGPL.
So, no, I still say that this is incorrect. neither the Neon, nor
LibIntl are GPL licensed. They are both LGPL.
OpenSSL is AFAIK optional so it shouldn't count. And even if they did
count they look like straight forward BSD style licenses that doesn't
impose any restrictions whatsoever on binary linkage to me. IANAL of course.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
Igor Vinnykov wrote:
> 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@tada.se> ???????/???????? ? ???????? ?????????:
> news:47272AF3.1010401@tada.se...
>> 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
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: [spaces-dev] SVN or CVS? [message #10119 is a reply to message #10096] |
Tue, 30 October 2007 14:44 |
Igor Vinnykov
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Hello Thomas,
I provided you by notes, prepared after libraries evaluation by Eclipse
lawers. From that point of view LGPL was treated as GPL. I don't know if
it's right or wrong, simply because I'm not a lawer. But as far as I
understand there are no difference between LGPL and GPL in terms of EPL
compatibility. There were some discussions in community around that, but in
fact now LGPS treated as GPL.
See this:
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf (GPL 2.0 and LGPL
were mentioned as incompatible licenses)
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/modeling-pmc/msg00319.h tml
Probably someone from Eclipse lawers team can provide comments on that
topic. Anyway I'm happy that we found a solution, which allows us to move
Subversive forward.
Best regards,
Igor Vinnykov
"Thomas Hallgren" <thomas@tada.se> ???????/???????? ? ???????? ?????????:
news:47273AB0.2020608@tada.se...
> Igor,
> Look at:
>
> http://www.webdav.org/neon/
>
> It clearly states that neon is "GNU Library GPL", i.e the LGPL (click on
> the link and you get to a page labeled "GNU Lesser General Public
> License"). What makes you say that this is GPL?
>
> If you look into the libintl source distribution, you will find two
> library licenses ("Copying.lib-2.0" and "Copying-lib-2.1"). Both of them
> list the GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, i.e. the LGPL. Further more,
> if you look at the source, every single source file has a header using
> LGPL.
>
> So, no, I still say that this is incorrect. neither the Neon, nor LibIntl
> are GPL licensed. They are both LGPL.
>
> OpenSSL is AFAIK optional so it shouldn't count. And even if they did
> count they look like straight forward BSD style licenses that doesn't
> impose any restrictions whatsoever on binary linkage to me. IANAL of
> course.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Hallgren
>
>
> Igor Vinnykov wrote:
>> 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@tada.se> ???????/???????? ? ???????? ?????????:
>> news:47272AF3.1010401@tada.se...
>>> 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
>>
|
|
|
| Re: [spaces-dev] SVN or CVS? [message #10143 is a reply to message #10119] |
Tue, 30 October 2007 15:12 |
|
Hi Igor,
OK, so there are two separate issues here.
1. If SVN has GPL dependencies or not. I claim it has not.
2. How LGPL is treated by Eclipse.org.
If we agree on #1, then we can get that out of the way.
Regarding #2, I think a clarification is needed on how Eclipse is
distributed with respect to LGPL. As an example, All Eclipse
distributions for Linux are bundled with SWT fragments that links with
the GTL libraries. The GTL libraries are LGPL.
I think it's more then reasonable to ask the Eclipse lawyers to treat
SVN the same way that they treat critical core platform components in
this respect. Don't you?
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
Igor Vinnykov wrote:
> Hello Thomas,
>
> I provided you by notes, prepared after libraries evaluation by Eclipse
> lawers. From that point of view LGPL was treated as GPL. I don't know if
> it's right or wrong, simply because I'm not a lawer. But as far as I
> understand there are no difference between LGPL and GPL in terms of EPL
> compatibility. There were some discussions in community around that, but in
> fact now LGPS treated as GPL.
>
> See this:
> http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf (GPL 2.0 and LGPL
> were mentioned as incompatible licenses)
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/modeling-pmc/msg00319.h tml
>
> Probably someone from Eclipse lawers team can provide comments on that
> topic. Anyway I'm happy that we found a solution, which allows us to move
> Subversive forward.
>
> Best regards,
> Igor Vinnykov
>
> "Thomas Hallgren" <thomas@tada.se> ???????/???????? ? ???????? ?????????:
> news:47273AB0.2020608@tada.se...
>> Igor,
>> Look at:
>>
>> http://www.webdav.org/neon/
>>
>> It clearly states that neon is "GNU Library GPL", i.e the LGPL (click on
>> the link and you get to a page labeled "GNU Lesser General Public
>> License"). What makes you say that this is GPL?
>>
>> If you look into the libintl source distribution, you will find two
>> library licenses ("Copying.lib-2.0" and "Copying-lib-2.1"). Both of them
>> list the GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, i.e. the LGPL. Further more,
>> if you look at the source, every single source file has a header using
>> LGPL.
>>
>> So, no, I still say that this is incorrect. neither the Neon, nor LibIntl
>> are GPL licensed. They are both LGPL.
>>
>> OpenSSL is AFAIK optional so it shouldn't count. And even if they did
>> count they look like straight forward BSD style licenses that doesn't
>> impose any restrictions whatsoever on binary linkage to me. IANAL of
>> course.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Thomas Hallgren
>>
>>
>> Igor Vinnykov wrote:
>>> 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@tada.se> ???????/???????? ? ???????? ?????????:
>>> news:47272AF3.1010401@tada.se...
>>>> 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
>
|
|
|
| Re: [spaces-dev] SVN or CVS? [message #10165 is a reply to message #10143] |
Tue, 30 October 2007 15:25 |
|
Eh, GTL = GTK of course. Bummer...
- thomas
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> Hi Igor,
>
> OK, so there are two separate issues here.
>
> 1. If SVN has GPL dependencies or not. I claim it has not.
> 2. How LGPL is treated by Eclipse.org.
>
> If we agree on #1, then we can get that out of the way.
>
> Regarding #2, I think a clarification is needed on how Eclipse is
> distributed with respect to LGPL. As an example, All Eclipse
> distributions for Linux are bundled with SWT fragments that links with
> the GTL libraries. The GTL libraries are LGPL.
>
> I think it's more then reasonable to ask the Eclipse lawyers to treat
> SVN the same way that they treat critical core platform components in
> this respect. Don't you?
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Hallgren
>
>
> Igor Vinnykov wrote:
>> Hello Thomas,
>>
>> I provided you by notes, prepared after libraries evaluation by
>> Eclipse lawers. From that point of view LGPL was treated as GPL. I
>> don't know if it's right or wrong, simply because I'm not a lawer. But
>> as far as I understand there are no difference between LGPL and GPL in
>> terms of EPL compatibility. There were some discussions in community
>> around that, but in fact now LGPS treated as GPL.
>>
>> See this:
>> http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf (GPL 2.0
>> and LGPL were mentioned as incompatible licenses)
>> http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/modeling-pmc/msg00319.h tml
>>
>> Probably someone from Eclipse lawers team can provide comments on that
>> topic. Anyway I'm happy that we found a solution, which allows us to
>> move Subversive forward.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Igor Vinnykov
>>
>> "Thomas Hallgren" <thomas@tada.se> ???????/???????? ? ????????
>> ?????????: news:47273AB0.2020608@tada.se...
>>> Igor,
>>> Look at:
>>>
>>> http://www.webdav.org/neon/
>>>
>>> It clearly states that neon is "GNU Library GPL", i.e the LGPL (click
>>> on the link and you get to a page labeled "GNU Lesser General Public
>>> License"). What makes you say that this is GPL?
>>>
>>> If you look into the libintl source distribution, you will find two
>>> library licenses ("Copying.lib-2.0" and "Copying-lib-2.1"). Both of
>>> them list the GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, i.e. the LGPL.
>>> Further more, if you look at the source, every single source file has
>>> a header using LGPL.
>>>
>>> So, no, I still say that this is incorrect. neither the Neon, nor
>>> LibIntl are GPL licensed. They are both LGPL.
>>>
>>> OpenSSL is AFAIK optional so it shouldn't count. And even if they did
>>> count they look like straight forward BSD style licenses that doesn't
>>> impose any restrictions whatsoever on binary linkage to me. IANAL of
>>> course.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Thomas Hallgren
>>>
>>>
>>> Igor Vinnykov wrote:
>>>> 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@tada.se> ???????/???????? ? ????????
>>>> ?????????: news:47272AF3.1010401@tada.se...
>>>>> 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
>>
|
|
|
| Re: [spaces-dev] SVN or CVS? [message #10854 is a reply to message #10143] |
Tue, 30 October 2007 15:32 |
Igor Vinnykov
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Hello Thomas,
Exactly. But in fact we already have a response from Eclipse Foundation,
which allows to define SVN binaries as exempt pre-req and simply unblock
Subversive migration to eclipse.org. That's solution for now. It just allows
us to start incubation for the project. Sure that the ideal solution will be
to bundle SVN binaries, but it will not simply work at the current moment by
different reason. In particular licensing topic (which you actually
mentioned) requires further negotiations. Also it's not clear now how SVN
binaries for different platforms will be distributed, etc. We will keep all
these things in mind and will work on finding optimal solutions, but it will
not be resolved at the moment.
Do you have special requests to bundle SVN binaries? (does it have relation
to Buckminder?) Do you want to participate in such sort of licensing
discussions? Your help is welcome.
Best regards,
Igor Vinnykov
"Thomas Hallgren" <thomas@tada.se> ???????/???????? ? ???????? ?????????:
news:472749DE.9020506@tada.se...
> Hi Igor,
>
> OK, so there are two separate issues here.
>
> 1. If SVN has GPL dependencies or not. I claim it has not.
> 2. How LGPL is treated by Eclipse.org.
>
> If we agree on #1, then we can get that out of the way.
>
> Regarding #2, I think a clarification is needed on how Eclipse is
> distributed with respect to LGPL. As an example, All Eclipse distributions
> for Linux are bundled with SWT fragments that links with the GTL
> libraries. The GTL libraries are LGPL.
>
> I think it's more then reasonable to ask the Eclipse lawyers to treat SVN
> the same way that they treat critical core platform components in this
> respect. Don't you?
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Hallgren
>
>
> Igor Vinnykov wrote:
>> Hello Thomas,
>>
>> I provided you by notes, prepared after libraries evaluation by Eclipse
>> lawers. From that point of view LGPL was treated as GPL. I don't know if
>> it's right or wrong, simply because I'm not a lawer. But as far as I
>> understand there are no difference between LGPL and GPL in terms of EPL
>> compatibility. There were some discussions in community around that, but
>> in fact now LGPS treated as GPL.
>>
>> See this:
>> http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf (GPL 2.0 and
>> LGPL were mentioned as incompatible licenses)
>> http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/modeling-pmc/msg00319.h tml
>>
>> Probably someone from Eclipse lawers team can provide comments on that
>> topic. Anyway I'm happy that we found a solution, which allows us to move
>> Subversive forward.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Igor Vinnykov
>>
>> "Thomas Hallgren" <thomas@tada.se> ???????/???????? ? ???????? ?????????:
>> news:47273AB0.2020608@tada.se...
>>> Igor,
>>> Look at:
>>>
>>> http://www.webdav.org/neon/
>>>
>>> It clearly states that neon is "GNU Library GPL", i.e the LGPL (click on
>>> the link and you get to a page labeled "GNU Lesser General Public
>>> License"). What makes you say that this is GPL?
>>>
>>> If you look into the libintl source distribution, you will find two
>>> library licenses ("Copying.lib-2.0" and "Copying-lib-2.1"). Both of them
>>> list the GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, i.e. the LGPL. Further
>>> more, if you look at the source, every single source file has a header
>>> using LGPL.
>>>
>>> So, no, I still say that this is incorrect. neither the Neon, nor
>>> LibIntl are GPL licensed. They are both LGPL.
>>>
>>> OpenSSL is AFAIK optional so it shouldn't count. And even if they did
>>> count they look like straight forward BSD style licenses that doesn't
>>> impose any restrictions whatsoever on binary linkage to me. IANAL of
>>> course.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Thomas Hallgren
>>>
>>>
>>> Igor Vinnykov wrote:
>>>> 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@tada.se> ???????/???????? ? ????????
>>>> ?????????: news:47272AF3.1010401@tada.se...
>>>>> 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
>>
|
|
|
| Re: [spaces-dev] SVN or CVS? [message #10866 is a reply to message #10854] |
Tue, 30 October 2007 16:21 |
|
Igor Vinnykov wrote:
> Do you have special requests to bundle SVN binaries? (does it have relation
> to Buckminder?)
I want to be able to bundle the Buckminster Subversive and Subclipse
features with Ganymede. I was not allowed to do that with Europa due to
licensing issues (that in my opinion was based on incorrect
assumptions). Hence my concern.
Bundling in this case implies to either actually include the binaries or
to appoint them using <archive ...> entries in the site.xml. Everything
else will force the user to visit yet another update site to get the
stuff he needs.
> Do you want to participate in such sort of licensing
> discussions? Your help is welcome.
>
I'm not a lawyer and my diplomatic skills are somewhat limited so I
doubt I'd bring anything positive to the discussion, but thanks for
asking :-)
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
|
|
| |
| Re: [spaces-dev] SVN or CVS? [message #10918 is a reply to message #10905] |
Wed, 31 October 2007 12:22 |
|
Hi Igor,
We share the same objectives I guess. I want SVN support *in* Eclipse,
provided *by* Eclipse, period. That has nothing to do with Buckminster
really. My perception is that SVN has been held back for a combination
of reasons. One is the assumption that it has incompatible licenses
(i.e. GPL) which in fact turns out to be wrong. The only requirement for
SVN support is that the bundles are allowed to link with LGPL'ed
libraries. The same requirement is true for the majority of the SWT
bundles in the platform. This is one point I'd like to stress. Any
policy concerning the LGPL must be consistently applied.
Another reason concerns redistribution of the dependent binaries. On
most Linux platforms, this redistribution is not needed (they bundle the
needed binaries already) but the most common platform, Windows, does
not. This is a problem. In order to solve it, we need a clarification
from the Eclipse EMO.
Since it apparently is legal create a distribution that contains
artifacts that link with LGPL libraries, it should in my opinion also be
legal to create artifacts that, in a download scenario, would reference
such artifacts so that a functional assembly could be established on the
client machine.
If the EMO disagrees with this, then SVN loose big-time. Perhaps it can
be solved anyway but it will take a lot of effort and the end result
will be less then perfect. Some ideas:
The SVN feature, when installed, runs an install-script that performs
discovery and if it fails to find the needed binaries, assists the user
in fetching them from some location. No gain really. The user could just
as well start at tigris.org or polarion.org (the process could be
automatic but I guess that from a legal standpoint, that would be
similar to reference them while downloading).
Another way would be to do a clean-room EPL'ed implementation of a SVN
client within the realms of Eclipse. Complete madness of course since a
large number of motivated and well organized developers currently
maintains perfectly good alternatives that imposes no restrictions
whatsoever on how it is used.
A third would be to convince TMate Software to relicense SVNKit under
EPL :-). That would solve the problem once and for all.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
Igor Vinnykov wrote:
> Hello Thomas,
>
> Let's join efforts in moving this forward. I think that such requirement
> from Buckminster project side about SVN binaries inclusion is just another
> good argument in discussion with PMC. Could you please describe your
> requirements (from Buckminster point of view) in details - why you need
> this, what it will give to community/users, etc. I can attach your request
> to our discussions with PMC and lawers.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Best regards,
> Igor Vinnykov
>
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Apr 25 08:09:17 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04107 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
