From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Shawn O. Pearce" Subject: Re: Git User's Survey 2007 unfinished summary (long) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:42:29 -0400 Message-ID: <20071005014229.GS2137@spearce.org> References: <8fe92b430710040212u332bb4e5yfa6c10b8236c6301@mail.gmail.com> <8fe92b430710040759r5777264aj5ecb09e0252fef9a@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Benoit SIGOURE , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 05 03:42:51 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IdcDD-0006tR-IC for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 05 Oct 2007 03:42:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760198AbXJEBme (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:42:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759530AbXJEBme (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:42:34 -0400 Received: from corvette.plexpod.net ([64.38.20.226]:39313 "EHLO corvette.plexpod.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760197AbXJEBmd (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:42:33 -0400 Received: from [74.70.48.173] (helo=asimov.home.spearce.org) by corvette.plexpod.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1IdcCp-0005me-Nj; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:42:19 -0400 Received: by asimov.home.spearce.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2C68620FBAE; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:42:29 -0400 (EDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8fe92b430710040759r5777264aj5ecb09e0252fef9a@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - corvette.plexpod.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - spearce.org Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jakub Narebski wrote: > On 10/4/07, Benoit SIGOURE wrote: > > On Oct 4, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > > Note that Git is GPLv2, and it will probably stay that forever, so you > > > are _free_ to start a commercial support scheme for Git, but others > > > are free not to choose it. This question is to get to know if there is > > > sufficient demand for commercial Git support for it to be viable. > > > > Once again (AFAIR this was already raised during one of the previous > > summary) what's the link between GPLv2 and commercial support? You > > seem to imply that because Git won't move to GPLv3, it's a good thing > > for potential paid support, or something. I don't quite see how > > GPLvX comes into play with commercial support. I'm not a license > > expert though. > > The only link between GPL and commercial support is that GPL does not > prohibit commercial support (like noncommercial-free licenses for example), > and that having commercial support doesn't mean that license would change > to proprietary (it cannot). Right. There has been some discussion in the past about forming "The Git Company". When this survey question was first posed there was some concern that Git might move to a commerical license of some sort and perhaps not be GPLvX anymore. That concern is a non-issue; the copyrights for Git are held by over 300 people, many of whom are kernel hackers and strong believers in the value of GPLv2. I'm not a kernel hacker, but I also believe strongly in the value of the GPLv2 license. You won't see me agreeing to move code I wrote to a non-GPL license anytime soon. Most (if not all!) of Git's authors feel the same way. There's several reasons why forming "The Git Company" might help the overall Git cause, and this question was a feeler to see if the community was interested in acquiring support through it. Many other open source projects seem to get some benefit from having a company loosely affiliated with them, not the least of which are things like: - some of the developers can focus more time on the project and still keep food on the table; - there are people focused on advertising/marketing the project and its benfits to potential end-users; - companies that feel warm-and-fuzzy by having a phone number they can call for help are more likely to want to use the project for critical services; - companies that want training or short-term consulting services know who they can contact for expertise. and the list goes on. The problem with said company is it costs money to keep the lights on and employees fed; money which obviously cannot be extorted from users through arcane licensing agreements. :-) -- Shawn.