From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Scott Chacon" Subject: Re: libgit2 - a true git library Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 18:07:04 -0700 Message-ID: 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=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Nicolas Pitre" , "Pierre Habouzit" , david@lang.hm, git@vger.kernel.org To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Nov 02 02:08:34 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 1KwRSC-0004kE-7R for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2008 02:08:32 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752168AbYKBBHH (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Nov 2008 21:07:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752041AbYKBBHH (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Nov 2008 21:07:07 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.183]:13198 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751881AbYKBBHF (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Nov 2008 21:07:05 -0400 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id v27so1068632wah.21 for ; Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:07:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=8oIigff8fBi/0ExBUDlXrVGMLtTbo6Mm6rlCDhOZadI=; b=GfAviOXXNNZ59Iu2UoAyKgo5JzIj/b0mSBfDveHqk+sW9kBRvZ8rpfsyVKZdH0So5t 6/vKjWa7kzMNgDxUu1HguZahQmnRuyUVsJJE9c5AVXDM9q/RIaTYtepiJTr2pVtcOKKP pEZHVlJCMbkeZjoesyvmbgenFyyv0FjtApT0w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=WTRcwgo3pfYtC3Kk7+fm4H/j5RuLqQqhlilka3dCsBlq+gMi0FbW72br6Cg46BLdMB iWyYHeM8RUAIffFJfs/dIzLhISp6AjRuMLKqfOOuSBQe6R2tZRKrLLQTMxu+bZ4pOpNi WwcnlvmM6y9VFXjNx/sYmix2Z253/0L2PIlCM= Received: by 10.114.255.1 with SMTP id c1mr11488144wai.87.1225588025165; Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.135.18 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 18:07:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: > On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: >> Nicolas Pitre wrote: >>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: >>> >>> > My take on the consensus for the license part of the discussion is >>> > that libgit2 should be under the "GPL gcc library" license. >>> > >>> > BTW, I can't actually find a copy of that license; the only thing >>> > I can locate in the GCC SVN tree is a copy of the LGPL. >>> >>> The exception is usually found at the top of files constituting >>> libgcc.a. One example is gcc/config/arm/ieee754-df.S. ;-) >> >> Headers updated. Its now GPL+gcc library exception. >> >> Not that the 5 lines of useful code there really needs copyright, >> but hey, whatever. I guess my main concern is that if a company wanted to direct resources at supporting Git in something (say, an editor or GUI or whatnot), and that company is of _any_ size, they are going to have to get their legal department to review this strange and almost totally unused license - only knowing that it's barely different than GPL and they know GPL will not fly. LGPL will likely be known to them and a policy may already be in place. 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. I personally would rather see it BSD or something more permissive so that no human has to waste even a second of their valuable time figuring out if they can work with it or not, but I understand that many people here are much more protective of their code. I simply think that LGPL is a much more widely used and understood compromise that affords nearly the same protectionism. Scott >> >> -- >> Shawn. >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >