From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Approxidate licensing Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:23:01 -0700 Message-ID: <7v64es0ycq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 10 21:23:27 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXNC0-0000SV-Pk for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:23:09 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932256AbWJJTXF (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:23:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932269AbWJJTXE (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:23:04 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao07.cox.net ([68.230.241.32]:44476 "EHLO fed1rmmtao07.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932256AbWJJTXC (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:23:02 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao07.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20061010192301.ZZGJ21457.fed1rmmtao07.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:23:01 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id YjP41V00P1kojtg0000000 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:23:04 -0400 To: Daniel Barkalow In-Reply-To: (Daniel Barkalow's message of "Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:39:47 -0400 (EDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Daniel Barkalow writes: > Would the three of you agree to license date.c under the LGPL or BSD? It > looks like you're the only authors of non-trivial changes [1]. And it seems > reasonable to want the date parsing thing under non-GPL terms outside of > git. I do not think I have enough code in there to influence the license of that file, so what I say below does not matter on this particular issue. The project as a whole is GPLv2 and GPLv2 only, but date.c is isolated enough that I think there are valid form of using it in your program without making your program a derived work. In other words, I do not think I have (even if I had written significant part of it, which I didn't) right to demand to see the rest of your program if you used date.c. I do not think I even have rights to ask about what kind of program it is. My wishes about the code I write for this project is very simple: If you improve my code that had helped you to make it help you even better, I would like to have that change back, so that your change would help me the same way as it helped you. The readers may have noticed that I have slight problem with GPLv2; in my wish it does not matter if you distribute the result or not. And I am selfish. It is not about helping my users, but about helping me ;-).