Re: git to libgit2 code relicensing

[David Brown <git@davidb.org>]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 01:39:16PM +0100, Miklos Vajna wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 03:46:58PM -0800, "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
>>  Note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as this project
>>  is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
>>  v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
>> 
>>  In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License,
>>  the authors give you unlimited permission to link the compiled
>>  version of this file into combinations with other programs,
>>  and to distribute those combinations without any restriction
>>  coming from the use of this file.  (The General Public License
>>  restrictions do apply in other respects; for example, they cover
>>  modification of the file, and distribution when not linked into
>>  a combined executable.)
>
>IANAL - what is the difference between this and the LGPL?

This clause allows static linking, and distribution of only the final
binary.  The LGPL always requires source to be made available to the
libaray.  This clause does not require that source to be distributed.

In other words, it allows libgit2 to be linked into a proprietary
program and the distributor of that program to _not_ include the
source of libgit2.  It is not clear if they have to provide source to
modifications that they have made, or if making those modifications
under the exception is even allowed.

There are numerous other versions of this exception, some of which
might be better worded than this.

David