Re: Approxidate licensing

> From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
> Date: Oct 10, 2006 2:39 PM
> Subject: Approxidate licensing
> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Junio C Hamano
> <junkio@cox.net>, dwmw2@infradead.org
> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
> 
> 
> I'm working on an LGPL project (for my company; it's obscure enough and
> we're lazy enough that we're not really distributing it in general in
> either source or binary form), and I'm running into the usual date parsing
> issue (i.e., all the standard functions are broken in various ways). My
> plan has been to write my own, but it's hard to get the motivation when
> approxidate exists, works well, and is open source.
> 
> 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.
> 
>        -Daniel
> *This .sig left intentionally blank*
> 
> [1] git log and git blame are pretty impressive, but they don't quite
> catch that most of date.c was written by David as part of commit-tree.c,
> then Tony replaced it with a version that uses curl, then Edgar separated
> it out into a date.c and simultaneously reverted Tony's changes. On the
> other hand, the commit messages do say this, and you can use git log and
> git blame to verify that they're true. The only thing they don't let
> you verify is what the differences are between the date.c added in
> ecee9d9e and the similar part of commit-tree.c in 812666c8. If someone
> wants to make git blame *really* magic, date.c would be a good test case.
> -
> 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