From: Johannes Schindelin Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2025 13:37:02 GMT Subject: Re: gitoxide-compatible licensing of Git's Rust code, was Re: [PATCH 6/7] xdiff: conditionally use Rust's implementation of xxhash Message-ID: <51c8c538-4baa-02e3-c8c2-4004626efd59@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: Hi Phillip, On Fri, 3 Oct 2025, Phillip Wood wrote: > On 03/10/2025 04:18, Jeff King wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 11:06:38AM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote: > > > > > > If I understand the suggestion correctly, it's not to license it > > > > specifically to GitOxide. It's to use a permissive license (like GPL > > > > with linking exception) that would make it compatible with other > > > > projects with similar licenses (like GitOxide). > > > > > > I was responding to this paragraph in Johannes' message > > > > > > Note the exception? For new Rust code (and of course excluding code > > > that has been ported verbatim from GPLv2-licensed code), GPL v2 > > > could be used with an exception along these lines: This file is > > > licensed under the GPL v2, with the exception that it can be freely > > > used in the Gitoxide project. > > > > > > That suggestion is pretty close to what libgit2 has in its git.git-authors > > > file[1]. I'm not sure how practical it is to special case just one project > > > though. > > > > Ah, yeah, I may have misunderstood the proposal then. > > > > I don't think that really changes much with respect to my concern, which > > is for existing code. > > I agree it doesn't change anything with regard to that, I think it just adds > more potential problems. While we were discussing this, the decision kind of has been made already: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20251027004404.2152927-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net/ This saves us the effort to discuss the benefits and risks of opening up to collaborating with e.g. Gitoxide (or with Jujutsu, which most likely also would have preferred a more open license), at the expense of closing that door gently, quietly and firmly. Ciao, Johannes