Re: Gitbox

[merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz)]

>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Perkins <cperkins@medialab.com> writes:

>> Which part, then?  Name chapter and verse.

Chris> Section 2 b). I quoted it in whole in my email:

Chris>   2 b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,
Chris>   that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program
Chris>   or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to
Chris>   all third parties under the terms of this License.

Broken pre-condition.  See the beginning of 2:

    2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of
    it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute
    such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided
    that you also meet all of these conditions:

Gitbox is not *modifying*, or creating a work *based on the Program*.
Separate copyrights.  The rest of your argument thus falls apart.

Chris> However, that said, I still think it's a violation of the GPL. That
Chris> license lays it out very clearly without much room for
Chris> interpretation.

Bullcrap. See above.  Get your preconditions right, and I'll play along.

Chris> You can't make commercial works based on GPL licensed software.

Sure you can.  RedHat makes money somehow.  Don't play the "we must be
starving artists for the cause of GPL" on me.

Chris> But I will add this, some on our team would very much like to
Chris> incorporate Git into one of our own upcoming commercial products.
Chris> Code-wise in the same manner as Gitbox has done. But we aren't going to
Chris> do this, because the GPL license for Git clearly states that we
Chris> cannot.

Maybe you need better lawyers then.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion