From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brown Subject: Re: libgit2 - a true git library Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 22:09:18 -0700 Message-ID: <20081102050917.GA26634@linode.davidb.org> References: <20081101010011.GG14786@spearce.org> <20081101010824.GE29036@artemis.corp> <20081101014336.GI14786@spearce.org> <20081101225714.GD15463@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: "Shawn O. Pearce" , Nicolas Pitre , Pierre Habouzit , david@lang.hm, git@vger.kernel.org To: Scott Chacon X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Nov 02 06:10:41 2008 connect(): Connection refused 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 1KwVEU-0005ZD-Tm for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2008 06:10:39 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751543AbYKBFJY (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Nov 2008 01:09:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751532AbYKBFJY (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Nov 2008 01:09:24 -0400 Received: from linode.davidb.org ([72.14.176.16]:51976 "EHLO mail.davidb.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751390AbYKBFJX (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Nov 2008 01:09:23 -0400 Received: from davidb by mail.davidb.org with local (Exim 4.69 #1 (Debian)) id 1KwVDC-0006yW-12; Sat, 01 Nov 2008 22:09:18 -0700 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 06:07:04PM -0700, Scott Chacon wrote: >Think about trying to incorporate this into something proprietary, >Shawn - how much of a pain is it going to be to get that license >reviewed in Google? However, LGPL I'm sure there is already a >reviewed policy. Now, since that may be a pain, time that Shawn could >have been spending being paid to work on the library is lost because >they can't use it, or it takes weeks/months to review it. That's my >concern. The gcc exception license should have been reviewed by anyone who has ever build anything proprietary out of gcc. GPL+link exception is a very common license. It's most common use is for runtime libraries for various programming languages. Lawyers I know are significantly less fearful of the GPL+exception than the LGPL. The exception basically says that if you use it in a certain way, then none of the GPL applies. David