{"thread":{"id":"35772","subject":"A few contributor's questions","startedAt":"2014-01-31T13:04:55Z","lastAt":"2014-02-03T17:35:22Z","messageCount":8,"participants":["David Kastrup","Jonathan Nieder","David Lang","Andreas Ericsson"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"233973","messageId":"8738k44808.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","threadId":"35772","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"A few contributor's questions","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2014-01-31T13:04:55Z","receivedAt":"2014-01-31T13:04:55Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"\nI'm still in the process of finishing the rewrite of the builtin/blame.c\ninternals.  Now there are various questions regarding the final patch\nproposals and commit messages.\n\nPoint 1) signing off implies that I'm fine with the licensing of the\nfile. builtin/blame.c merely states\n\n/*\n * Blame\n *\n * Copyright (c) 2006, Junio C Hamano\n */\n\nwhich obviously will not match the authorship of my contributions.\nSince Junio has given blanket permission to reuse his Git contributions\nunder other licenses (see\n<URL:https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/blob/development/git.git-authors#L58>)\nthat I am not going to license my work under, the first commit in the\nrespective series would replace this header with\n\n/*\n * Blame\n *\n * Copyright (c) 2006--2014, Junio C Hamano and others\n * Licensed under GPLv2.  See Git's COPYING file for details.\n */\n\nThat should be reasonably accurate boilerplate, I think, and should\navoid code from multiple authors to be erroneously assumed subjected to\nagreements other than the default Git project licensing.\n\nWhich brings us to further nitty-gritty details.\n\nPersonally, I'm fine with permitting licensing contributions of mine\nunder GPLv2 or later.  Is there any clearing house where I can have this\nsentiment recorded in a manner where potential heirs (which according to\ncopyright law will retain control over my works even when born after my\ndemise, so I cannot in good conscience vouch for their common sense)\ncannot contest it?  Like putting\n\nPermissable-Licenses: GPL Version 2 or later\n\nin the commit message?\n\n\nAnd finally, the ugly: I don't have any income apart from volunteers\npaying me for writing Free Software, so a contribution like this one,\nhaving taken substantial time, will make for a rather tepid report of my\nGNU LilyPond activities in January and a corresponding slackening of\nvolunteer payments for what I could have been doing instead.\n\nIt's not the first performance shortcoming of Git I have worked on.  In\ncontrast to most other contributors, I won't be able to afford following\na whim for addressing such deficiencies in future without a chance for\nrecouping my losses.\n\nMy experience with GNU LilyPond has led me to conclude that the best\nchance of getting voluntary payments is to appeal to those who are most\ninvested in the well-being of the software.  It's a sad reality that\nthey tend to be identical to those who are already investing substantial\namounts of time and effort into the project themselves.  So I'll put the\nrespective begging notice into the cover letter of the patch series:\nI don't think it belongs in the commit messages, and it's not likely to\nbe effective anyway.\n\nWhile I could put a \"Prepaid-by:\" footer into the commit messages, the\nmain effect would likely be to trigger the \"somebody else's problem\"\neffect.  My experience with this kind of polite notice is that it's good\nfor the equivalent of a case of beer every ten years.\n\nIf the performance enhancements are mentioned in a release announcement,\nadding a notice along the line \"The performance of git blame has been\nsignificantly improved by David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>.  If this affects\nyou, consider contributing to his reimbursement.\"  would of course also\nbe welcome.\n\nOk, this should be about covering the bad and the ugly.  I'm still\nworking on the -C and -M replacements given the new code.  Hopefully\nfinished this weekend.\n\nAll the best\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"},{"id":"233979","messageId":"20140131161924.GA4332@google.com","threadId":"35772","inReplyTo":"8738k44808.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","subject":"Re: A few contributor's questions","fromName":"Jonathan Nieder","fromEmail":"jrnieder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-01-31T16:19:24Z","receivedAt":"2014-01-31T16:19:24Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jrnieder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/281595?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nDavid Kastrup wrote:\n\n>       builtin/blame.c merely states\n>\n> /*\n>  * Blame\n>  *\n>  * Copyright (c) 2006, Junio C Hamano\n>  */\n\nI think you planned to make substantial changes, so\n\n> /*\n>  * Blame\n>  *\n>  * Copyright (c) 2006--2014, Junio C Hamano and others\n>  * Licensed under GPLv2.  See Git's COPYING file for details.\n>  */\n\ntowards the end of the series (or squashed into some patch that makes\nsignificant changes) looks fine to me.\n\nAlso keep in mind that you don't need a copyright notice to own\ncopyright, that it would be crazy for someone to claim you've assigned\ncopyright on your changes without an explicit reassignment, and that\nlibgit2's git.git-authors file that keeps coming up includes a comment\nwith a heuristic for delving into the history to find the authors of\nsome code.\n\n[...]\n> Permissable-Licenses: GPL Version 2 or later\n\nWouldn't a signed message on your website or some other public place\n(e.g., the mailing list) do the trick?\n\nOr a sentence in a commit message saying\n\n \"I'd be happy to have these changes relicensed under the GPL version 2\n or later.\"\n\nsounds fine to me, at least.\n\nThanks and hope that helps,\nJonathan\n"},{"id":"233982","messageId":"87mwic2ijo.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","threadId":"35772","inReplyTo":"20140131161924.GA4332@google.com","subject":"Re: A few contributor's questions","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2014-01-31T17:00:11Z","receivedAt":"2014-01-31T17:00:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:\n\n> Also keep in mind that you don't need a copyright notice to own\n> copyright, that it would be crazy for someone to claim you've assigned\n> copyright on your changes without an explicit reassignment,\n\nNot at all crazy: Documentation/SubmittingPatches states that adding a\n\"Signed-off-by:\" footer to a commit among other things constitutes\nagreement to\n\n        Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1\n\n        By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:\n\n        (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I\n            have the right to submit it under the open source license\n            indicated in the file; or\n\n        (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best\n            of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source\n            license and I have the right under that license to submit that\n            work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part\n            by me, under the same open source license (unless I am\n            permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated\n            in the file; or\n\nThe only relevant notice to licensing \"indicated in the file\" currently\nis \"Copyright (c) 2006 by Junio Hamano\".\n\nAlso whether or not this implies an assignment of copyright, it is a\nreasonable assumption for people working with a copy of Git distributed\nby tar file or otherwise that a file with such a copyright notice only\ncontains material copyrighted by Junio Hamano.  So if I want to assert\nmy copyright in the case of licensing breaches, the party in breach may\nclaim estoppel by me \"hiding\" material copyrighted by myself in a file\nwith such a notice.\n\n> and that libgit2's git.git-authors file that keeps coming up includes\n> a comment with a heuristic for delving into the history to find the\n> authors of some code.\n\nSure.  But that does not mean that this is the only means to \"reasonably\ninfer\" the authorship of a file.\n\n> [...]\n>> Permissable-Licenses: GPL Version 2 or later\n>\n> Wouldn't a signed message on your website or some other public place\n> (e.g., the mailing list) do the trick?\n\nLegally?  Sure.  The whole point of such a notice in the commit message\n(or in some central file in the Git repository) is to save people the\nhassle of second-guessing or sleuthing for every single contribution.\n\n> Or a sentence in a commit message saying\n>\n>  \"I'd be happy to have these changes relicensed under the GPL version\n>  2 or later.\"\n>\n> sounds fine to me, at least.\n\nIt's verbose and cumbersome enough that I would not have been surprised\nif there'd be an established way of getting this information on record,\npreferably per-project rather than per-commit.  If it's going to be\nper-commit, a footer line would be less obtrusive than a whole sentence.\n\nBut it would seem that there's no rule/standard here.\n\nThanks\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"},{"id":"233990","messageId":"20140131184842.GA30398@google.com","threadId":"35772","inReplyTo":"87mwic2ijo.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","subject":"Re: A few contributor's questions","fromName":"Jonathan Nieder","fromEmail":"jrnieder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-01-31T18:48:42Z","receivedAt":"2014-01-31T18:48:42Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jrnieder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/281595?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nDavid Kastrup wrote:\n\n> Also whether or not this implies an assignment of copyright, it is a\n> reasonable assumption for\n[...]\n\nSince I think we've completely gone off the rails:\n\nI assume the problem you're trying to solve is that files don't have\nclear enough notices of their licensing.  That could be a real problem\nfor people using the code, since if you no one gave you a license then\nyou don't have a license at all.  It's also a problem in that it makes\nit harder to interpret the phrase \"under the same open source license\"\n(though I have no idea how that could be read as \"I give up my\ncopyright completely\").\n\nThe way git currently works in that area is the same as the Linux\nkernel:\n\n * the code is copyright by the authors and we try not to waste fuss\n   on maintaining a comprehensive list in notices.  If you want to\n   find the authors to negotiate special licensing, you get to do the\n   work.\n\n * license is GPLv2-only where not otherwise specified\n\n * relicensing, when needed, happens by contacting all the copyright\n   holders and getting their consent\n\nI don't see anything weird about that.  But people using the code\nmight like clearer notices, so I personally would not mind an extra\nline in most files stating the license.  (More than that and it\nbecomes absurd.)  That's all just my opinion --- Junio might think\ndifferently, etc.\n\n[...]\n> It's verbose and cumbersome enough that I would not have been surprised\n> if there'd be an established way of getting this information on record,\n> preferably per-project rather than per-commit.\n\nFor relicensing the existing practice is to just contact people.  That\nhas the advantage that I can make a decision about whether to allow\nrelicensing code I've written in the context of how I expect it to be\nused.  I expect that if you had a stance on GPLv2+ licensing of\ncontributions to git published in some place easily found by search\nengines (for example a message on the mailing list), interested people\nwould not have too much trouble finding it when the time comes.\n\nHope that helps,\nJonathan\n"},{"id":"233997","messageId":"87iosz3lpz.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","threadId":"35772","inReplyTo":"20140131184842.GA30398@google.com","subject":"Re: A few contributor's questions","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2014-01-31T21:06:16Z","receivedAt":"2014-01-31T21:06:16Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:\n\n> I assume the problem you're trying to solve is that files don't have\n> clear enough notices of their licensing.\n\nNo, just the file that I'm contributing to.  It has a single copyright\nattribution that arguably is already less than accurate _unless_ the\nrespective authors can be considered to have been acting with the intent\nof letting Junio do whatever he wants to do with their contribution.\n\n> That could be a real problem for people using the code, since if you\n> no one gave you a license then you don't have a license at all.\n\nIn that case, it is reasonably to revert to the general license.\n\n> It's also a problem in that it makes it harder to interpret the phrase\n> \"under the same open source license\" (though I have no idea how that\n> could be read as \"I give up my copyright completely\").\n\nIf the existing notice is \"(c) Junio Hamano\" that means that Junio is\nfully able to license at his will.  And in the case of his work on Git,\nthis includes his expressive permission to relicense under the\nconditions of libgit2, including a no-modification binary-only licensing\noption.\n\nSo my problem is not as much that people might get the idea they might\nnot use/copy my work at all (which would be silly), but rather that they\nhave reasonable expectation to use it under the licensing scheme of\nlibgit2 without getting back to me.\n\n>  * the code is copyright by the authors and we try not to waste fuss\n>    on maintaining a comprehensive list in notices.\n\nThat's fine, but we are talking not about a list but a single named\ncopyright holder.  I was proposing adding \"and others\" to clarify that\nthe list is not exhaustive.\n\n>  * relicensing, when needed, happens by contacting all the copyright\n>    holders and getting their consent\n>\n> I don't see anything weird about that.\n\nNeither do I.\n\n> But people using the code might like clearer notices, so I personally\n> would not mind an extra line in most files stating the license.\n\nI was more concerned about amending the copyright attribution, though a\nsingle line pointing out GPLv2 and referring the reader to the general\nCOPYING file does not seem excessive, either.\n\n>> It's verbose and cumbersome enough that I would not have been\n>> surprised if there'd be an established way of getting this\n>> information on record, preferably per-project rather than per-commit.\n>\n> For relicensing the existing practice is to just contact people.\n\nWell, that stops working once they are dead.  And it's probably rather\ntricky to locate their heirs even in case they have placed instructions\nconcerning their copyrights into their last will.  While I am not in a\nrush here, I am still likely to turn decomposing into a fulltime\noccupation earlier than most other contributors: I started working with\ncomputers at a time when the single most imminent danger to long-term\ndata archival were mice.\n\n> That has the advantage that I can make a decision about whether to\n> allow relicensing code I've written in the context of how I expect it\n> to be used.  I expect that if you had a stance on GPLv2+ licensing of\n> contributions to git published in some place easily found by search\n> engines (for example a message on the mailing list), interested people\n> would not have too much trouble finding it when the time comes.\n\nMaybe, maybe not.  There is a big hole in the indexing of the Google\nNews history that was taken over from what once was Dejanews.  Putting\nthe information regarding prospective licensing close to the actual\nsource seems like a smart move.\n\nAt any rate, if there is no stock procedure for that, that's it.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"},{"id":"234002","messageId":"alpine.DEB.2.02.1401311556410.2733@nftneq.ynat.uz","threadId":"35772","inReplyTo":"87iosz3lpz.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","subject":"Re: A few contributor's questions","fromName":"David Lang","fromEmail":"david@lang.hm","sentAt":"2014-01-31T23:58:54Z","receivedAt":"2014-01-31T23:58:54Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"david@lang.hm","avatar":null},"body":"when relicensing, people use git blame, not header copyright notices to track \ndown the authors.\n\nif you are bothered by the copyright notice at the top, modify it as part of \nyour patchset, it's very unlikely that anyone will care enough to object.\n\nBut copyright assignment has very strict requirements, it can't just be implicit \nor in e-mail, it requires a signed document, so unless you sign a document \nstating that you are transferring copyright, you don't have to worry about that.\n\nDavid Lang\n\n\n  On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, David Kastrup wrote:\n\n> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 22:06:16 +0100\n> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>\n> To: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>\n> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org\n> Subject: Re: A few contributor's questions\n> \n> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:\n>\n>> I assume the problem you're trying to solve is that files don't have\n>> clear enough notices of their licensing.\n>\n> No, just the file that I'm contributing to.  It has a single copyright\n> attribution that arguably is already less than accurate _unless_ the\n> respective authors can be considered to have been acting with the intent\n> of letting Junio do whatever he wants to do with their contribution.\n>\n>> That could be a real problem for people using the code, since if you\n>> no one gave you a license then you don't have a license at all.\n>\n> In that case, it is reasonably to revert to the general license.\n>\n>> It's also a problem in that it makes it harder to interpret the phrase\n>> \"under the same open source license\" (though I have no idea how that\n>> could be read as \"I give up my copyright completely\").\n>\n> If the existing notice is \"(c) Junio Hamano\" that means that Junio is\n> fully able to license at his will.  And in the case of his work on Git,\n> this includes his expressive permission to relicense under the\n> conditions of libgit2, including a no-modification binary-only licensing\n> option.\n>\n> So my problem is not as much that people might get the idea they might\n> not use/copy my work at all (which would be silly), but rather that they\n> have reasonable expectation to use it under the licensing scheme of\n> libgit2 without getting back to me.\n>\n>>  * the code is copyright by the authors and we try not to waste fuss\n>>    on maintaining a comprehensive list in notices.\n>\n> That's fine, but we are talking not about a list but a single named\n> copyright holder.  I was proposing adding \"and others\" to clarify that\n> the list is not exhaustive.\n>\n>>  * relicensing, when needed, happens by contacting all the copyright\n>>    holders and getting their consent\n>>\n>> I don't see anything weird about that.\n>\n> Neither do I.\n>\n>> But people using the code might like clearer notices, so I personally\n>> would not mind an extra line in most files stating the license.\n>\n> I was more concerned about amending the copyright attribution, though a\n> single line pointing out GPLv2 and referring the reader to the general\n> COPYING file does not seem excessive, either.\n>\n>>> It's verbose and cumbersome enough that I would not have been\n>>> surprised if there'd be an established way of getting this\n>>> information on record, preferably per-project rather than per-commit.\n>>\n>> For relicensing the existing practice is to just contact people.\n>\n> Well, that stops working once they are dead.  And it's probably rather\n> tricky to locate their heirs even in case they have placed instructions\n> concerning their copyrights into their last will.  While I am not in a\n> rush here, I am still likely to turn decomposing into a fulltime\n> occupation earlier than most other contributors: I started working with\n> computers at a time when the single most imminent danger to long-term\n> data archival were mice.\n>\n>> That has the advantage that I can make a decision about whether to\n>> allow relicensing code I've written in the context of how I expect it\n>> to be used.  I expect that if you had a stance on GPLv2+ licensing of\n>> contributions to git published in some place easily found by search\n>> engines (for example a message on the mailing list), interested people\n>> would not have too much trouble finding it when the time comes.\n>\n> Maybe, maybe not.  There is a big hole in the indexing of the Google\n> News history that was taken over from what once was Dejanews.  Putting\n> the information regarding prospective licensing close to the actual\n> source seems like a smart move.\n>\n> At any rate, if there is no stock procedure for that, that's it.\n>\n>"},{"id":"234115","messageId":"52EFC551.8030203@op5.se","threadId":"35772","inReplyTo":"8738k44808.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","subject":"Re: A few contributor's questions","fromName":"Andreas Ericsson","fromEmail":"ae@op5.se","sentAt":"2014-02-03T16:35:29Z","receivedAt":"2014-02-03T16:35:29Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ae@op5.se","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/426e89595c75a8f5252dd0c989e5fabe5bcac616e68557427ad9aef6b0ca342a?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On 2014-01-31 14:04, David Kastrup wrote:\n> \n> I'm still in the process of finishing the rewrite of the builtin/blame.c\n> internals.  Now there are various questions regarding the final patch\n> proposals and commit messages.\n> \n> Point 1) signing off implies that I'm fine with the licensing of the\n> file. builtin/blame.c merely states\n> \n> /*\n>  * Blame\n>  *\n>  * Copyright (c) 2006, Junio C Hamano\n>  */\n> \n> which obviously will not match the authorship of my contributions.\n> Since Junio has given blanket permission to reuse his Git contributions\n> under other licenses (see\n> <URL:https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/blob/development/git.git-authors#L58>)\n> that I am not going to license my work under, the first commit in the\n> respective series would replace this header with\n> \n\nIt's a long time since I wrote that document.\n\nDoes this mean you're not willing to relicense your contributions with\nthe license used by libgit2? That's what the document is supposed to\nmean and it's what I asked on the mailing list when requesting\npermission.\n\nThe libgit2 license used as of today is still the license that people\nagreed to relicense their contributions under. It can be found here:\nhttps://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/blob/development/.HEADER\n\nI'm mostly adding it here for the sake of clarity in case people find\nthis in the future and wonder what all the fuzz was about.\n\n-- \nAndreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se\nOP5 AB                             www.op5.se\nTel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231\n\nConsidering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and\nterror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war\non peace.\n"},{"id":"234117","messageId":"87vbwwxfol.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","threadId":"35772","inReplyTo":"52EFC551.8030203@op5.se","subject":"Re: A few contributor's questions","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2014-02-03T17:35:22Z","receivedAt":"2014-02-03T17:35:22Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:\n\n> On 2014-01-31 14:04, David Kastrup wrote:\n>> \n>> I'm still in the process of finishing the rewrite of the builtin/blame.c\n>> internals.  Now there are various questions regarding the final patch\n>> proposals and commit messages.\n>> \n>> Point 1) signing off implies that I'm fine with the licensing of the\n>> file. builtin/blame.c merely states\n>> \n>> /*\n>>  * Blame\n>>  *\n>>  * Copyright (c) 2006, Junio C Hamano\n>>  */\n>> \n>> which obviously will not match the authorship of my contributions.\n>> Since Junio has given blanket permission to reuse his Git contributions\n>> under other licenses (see\n>> <URL:https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/blob/development/git.git-authors#L58>)\n>> that I am not going to license my work under, the first commit in the\n>> respective series would replace this header with\n>\n> It's a long time since I wrote that document.\n>\n> Does this mean you're not willing to relicense your contributions with\n> the license used by libgit2? That's what the document is supposed to\n> mean and it's what I asked on the mailing list when requesting\n> permission.\n\nI make a living from writing Free Software.  It should hardly come as a\nsurprise that I will not hand libgit2 users like Microsoft or GitHub\nsoftware for unrestricted use in proprietary products without getting\nrecompensated.  They make money from their products without sharing\ntheir code back.\n\nSo I'm not going to relicense my work under the libgit2 license\n_without_ _recompensation_, for use by companies that don't license\ntheir work without recompensation.  It would be grossly unfair towards\nthose people who actually pay me for writing GPLed software (mostly GNU\nLilyPond).  Of course I regularly report what I worked on, and I expect\na temporary drop in my funding corresponding to the lack of\nLilyPond-related activities.  So there is an actual cost for me to bear,\nand I will not bear it myself in order to support proprietary\nderivatives.\n\nSo the price tag for letting the finished git-blame work (I've found a\nfew more optimizations making it more worthwhile) get relicensed under\nthe libgit2 licensing scheme would be in the order of €10000.  It would\ntake a rather good salaried programmer to reproduce what I'm doing right\nnow for the same price tag, and since my work will be available in Git\nproper under the GPLv2 before anybody has to make any decision, there is\nno uncertainty about exactly what people will be getting.\n\nIf there is going to be significant use of the git-blame functionality\nby libgit2, I claim that the gain in efficiency (and programming time)\nwould more than offset the cost.\n\nAnd if there isn't going to be significant use of that functionality,\nit's not important whether it's in libgit2 or not.\n\n> The libgit2 license used as of today is still the license that people\n> agreed to relicense their contributions under. It can be found here:\n> https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/blob/development/.HEADER\n\nThat's actually the license on some files.  The overall license\nstatement in\n<URL:https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/blob/development/COPYING>\nsuggests that the libgit2 code base encompasses quite more components.\nSome of those are mentioned as being licensed under the Apache 2.0\nlicense, incompatible to GPLv2 according to\n<URL:https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html>.  Since the\nGPL requires licensing of a work _as_ _a_ _whole_, it's not really all\ntoo obvious to me whether any part but the linking/unmodified-binary\nexception will actually be effective.\n\nBut that's pure speculation on my part (I am obviously not a lawyer) and\nno skin off my nose if somebody wants to invest the price for releasing\nunder whatever licensing scheme libgit2 happens to use.  If libgit2 or a\nvariant of it reverts to unmodified GPLv2 (or later) at any point of\ntime, they are free to just take what is there without having to\nnegotiate with me (or anybody else), anyway.\n\nAnd of course, calling the git executable and letting it do the work\nwill also remain an option.  That's likely what the simple git web\nservices do anyway.  \"git blame\" is usually disabled in web interfaces\nfor performance reasons, and I'm afraid that even a factor of 3--4 in\nspeed (which is what I'm getting with uglier real-world cases) is not\ngoing to change that.\n\n> I'm mostly adding it here for the sake of clarity in case people find\n> this in the future and wonder what all the fuzz was about.\n\nIt's probably easy to notice that I can make a lot of fuzz about small\nthings.  It's probably less annoying when I do it in code rather than in\nprose...\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"}]}