Re: libgit2 - a true git library

From: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Nov 2, 2008, 01:36 UTC
Message-ID: <20081102013636.GF15463@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <d411cc4a0811011807g229f8becs9f411d6e19fb6c12@mail.gmail.com>

Scott Chacon <schacon@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> > On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Headers updated.  Its now GPL+gcc library exception.
> 
> 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.

Apparently BSD won't fly, as you have already seen on the list.

If we did put the library under a BSD license we'd lose some core contributors. Or they at least wouldn't improve the library code, even if git.git linked to it in the future. I don't want to lose these folks.

IANAL, but from what I can tell the main difference between LGPL and GPL+"gcc library exception" is that the LGPL requires that the end-user must be able to relink the derived executable with their own replacement library. The GPL+"gcc library exception" makes no such requirement.

If you read the exception clause it practically makes the library even easier to use commerically than the BSD license does, however modifications to the library sources must still be distributed.

Isn't that actually somewhat close to the Mozilla Public License?

-- 
Shawn.