Re: Git User's Survey 2007 unfinished summary (long)

From: Benoit SIGOURE <tsuna@lrde.epita.fr>
Date: Oct 4, 2007, 12:04 UTC
Message-ID: <CDD8E66B-44E0-4258-A3CC-4E48BC58FD2F@lrde.epita.fr>
In-Reply-To: <8fe92b430710040212u332bb4e5yfa6c10b8236c6301@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Jakub, nice work you've done there. Well done!

On Oct 4, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Jakub Narebski wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

> 55. Would commerical (paid) support from a support vendor
>     be of interest to you/your organization?
>
>   Answer                         | Count
>   ------------------------------------------
>   Not Applicable                 | 203
>   Yes                            | 69
>   No                             | 322
>
>   Yes + No                       | 391
>   ------------------------------------------
>   Base                           | 594 / 683
>   Total (sum)                    | 594
>
> Only 69 (12%) answers yes, 322 no, 203 not applicable (which meant
> to encompass people who do not use git at and for work).
>
> 433 = 56 + 377 people participating in this survey use git for work,
> or for both work and unpaid projects (as compared to 391 who answered
> this question not with N/A).
>
> Note that Git is GPLv2, and it will probably stay that forever, so you
> are _free_ to start a commercial support scheme for Git, but others
> are free not to choose it. This question is to get to know if there is
> sufficient demand for commercial Git support for it to be viable.

Once again (AFAIR this was already raised during one of the previous summary) what's the link between GPLv2 and commercial support? You seem to imply that because Git won't move to GPLv3, it's a good thing for potential paid support, or something. I don't quite see how GPLvX comes into play with commercial support. I'm not a license expert though.

-- 
Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna
EPITA Research and Development Laboratory