From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: libgit2 - a true git library Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:33:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <20081031170704.GU14786@spearce.org> <20081031174745.GA4058@artemis.corp> <7viqr873x7.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20081031234115.GD14786@spearce.org> <20081101010011.GG14786@spearce.org> <20081101010824.GE29036@artemis.corp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: david@lang.hm, "Shawn O. Pearce" , git@vger.kernel.org To: Pierre Habouzit X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Nov 01 02:37:21 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 1Kw5QW-0007HK-6U for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2008 02:37:20 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751521AbYKABd6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:33:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751495AbYKABd6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:33:58 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:31303 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751292AbYKABd5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:33:57 -0400 Received: from xanadu.home ([66.131.194.97]) by VL-MO-MR004.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-4.01 (built Aug 3 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0K9M007ROSCFGO40@VL-MO-MR004.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:33:52 -0400 (EDT) X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home In-reply-to: <20081101010824.GE29036@artemis.corp> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, 1 Nov 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > See junio's example. It's rather easy to add hooks into the library to > implement a feature outside of it. It's even possible to do it while > preserving the ABI fully IMHO (by being a strict superset of it). > > The patch would be so trivial, that I see no reason why they wouldn't > provide it. Though the real implementation of the feature that would be > delegated through it would be in their closed source stuff. But at that point it's a matter of public perception. It would clearly be against the spirit of the license even though the license itself couldn't prevent such tortuous practices. Those people doing such things would clearly be identified as bad guys and get bad press, and libgit contributors could even attempt law suits based on the derived work angle. That might be just enough to prevent such things to happen. OTOH they would certainly come out clean if the license was BSD since the spirit of that license explicitly allows closing up the whole library and adding extra features. Nicolas