From: Petr Baudis Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:11:27 GMT Subject: Re: Licensing and the library version of git Message-ID: <20060727131127.GA13776@pasky.or.cz> In-Reply-To: <9e4733910607270554p5622ee20ida8c264cf3122500@mail.gmail.com> Dear diary, on Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 02:54:54PM CEST, I got a letter where Jon Smirl said that... > In general libraries should be licensed LGPL to avoid the license > incompatibility problem. A GPL library forces the main app to be GPL > too. But really another main app here (Git) is ending up in the library. You can still always use the "Git ABI" - the commands. Or you could try having a GPL'd "Git/Eclipse toolkit" which would reduce the barrier to only single exec per Git invocation or something, but it would be probably somewhat tricky on the derived works playground. > You may like trying to force GPL onto the app but many apps are > stuck with the license they have and can't be changed since there is > no way to contact the original developers. At this point, git-shortlog lists exactly 200 people (at least entries like Unknown or No name are all linux@horizon.com ;-). -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ Snow falling on Perl. White noise covering line noise. Hides all the bugs too. -- J. Putnam