From: D. Ben Knoble <ben.knoble@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2026 17:46:24 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] faster SHA-1 collision detection
Message-ID: <CALnO6CDNm2cRNqBU6GKNK4axn2ij5uDgKnAm_itj36oFECfPQw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqece015k1.fsf@gitster.g>

On Thu, Oct 8, 2026 at 1:10 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> "D. Ben Knoble" <ben.knoble@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > but I didn't see a discussion of licensing at that time. Perhaps the
> > idea is that we are clear that such code carries a different license
> > from Git?
>
> We are GPL-2 only, which means we can incorporate BSD-licensed
> software as long as we satisfy its license and copyright notice
> requirements.
>
> The above is not an AI-bot-supplied answer, but what one learns when
> talking to copyright lawyers or reading books on software licensing.

Thanks, that's good to know---but in this case I thought we were
talking about the MIT license?

Assuming a similar analysis applies (not clear to me, but not
implausible either), that might also answer my question about Gentoo's
license descriptor. The product is GPL-2 even if one input was MIT
(though it feels strange to effectively "re-license" someone else's
code this way).

-- 
D. Ben Knoble