From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Shawn O. Pearce" Subject: Re: libgit2 - a true git library Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:20:18 -0800 Message-ID: <20081103162017.GL15463@spearce.org> References: <20081101010011.GG14786@spearce.org> <20081101010824.GE29036@artemis.corp> <20081101014336.GI14786@spearce.org> <20081101225714.GD15463@spearce.org> <20081102050917.GA26634@linode.davidb.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Scott Chacon , Nicolas Pitre , Pierre Habouzit , david@lang.hm, git@vger.kernel.org To: David Brown X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Nov 03 17:21:45 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 1Kx2BK-0000O1-Em for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:21:34 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756143AbYKCQUU (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:20:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756092AbYKCQUU (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:20:20 -0500 Received: from george.spearce.org ([209.20.77.23]:54864 "EHLO george.spearce.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756028AbYKCQUT (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:20:19 -0500 Received: by george.spearce.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 1B1943835F; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 16:20:18 +0000 (UTC) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081102050917.GA26634@linode.davidb.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: David Brown wrote: > 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. Indeed. And gcc is a *very* popular compiler on Linux distributions. A lot of commerical software is built under it, and distributed in binary-only form. Those companies have already done the legal review they felt necessary before shipping (and selling) that software. -- Shawn.