Re: git to libgit2 code relicensing
- From
David Brown <git@davidb.org>
- Date
- Nov 15, 2008, 18:53 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20081115185318.GC22714@linode.davidb.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <3af572ac0811150228k291b8850idc34cb474f455aa7@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:28:39AM +0100, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
Show 15 quoted lines
>> Shawn posted the exact text. The spirit of that license is that anyone can >> use an unmodified version of the library for whatever they want, but it's >> illegal to link non-GPL software to an altered version of the library. That >> is, the git community will get all changes back while other projects can >> use the official version of the library without having to worry about >> licensing issues. EvilCompany cannot make changes to the library and then >> link non-GPL'd software to their changed version. They can do that if they >> send their library changes upstream and then only use them once they're >> considered "official" though. > >Do you mean if I write a patch to libgit2, send it upstream and make >it public on my website but it is not accepted upstream, I cannot link >my modified libgit2 version (i. e. libgit2 + my patch) to my non-GPL >software? It looks insane to me: I wrote the patch and made it public >but you guys did not accept it!
The license is not clear on this, at all. Since under the GPLv2, you are allowed to make a derivative work, and distribute that, you are then basing your binary off of your particular distribution. The license does not have a notion of an "official" version. So, it might be satisfied as long as you base it off of something that is distributed.
But, yes, it is vaguely worded and unclear in it's intent.
David