Re: libgit2 - a true git library
- From
Scott Chacon <schacon@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 2, 2008, 01:07 UTC
- Message-ID
- <d411cc4a0811011807g229f8becs9f411d6e19fb6c12@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <d411cc4a0811011726h1fb1ad0ct5c37af753940f4a4@mail.gmail.com>
Show 17 quoted lines
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote: >> Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote: >>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: >>> >>> > My take on the consensus for the license part of the discussion is >>> > that libgit2 should be under the "GPL gcc library" license. >>> > >>> > BTW, I can't actually find a copy of that license; the only thing >>> > I can locate in the GCC SVN tree is a copy of the LGPL. >>> >>> The exception is usually found at the top of files constituting >>> libgcc.a. One example is gcc/config/arm/ieee754-df.S. ;-) >> >> Headers updated. Its now GPL+gcc library exception. >> >> Not that the 5 lines of useful code there really needs copyright, >> but hey, whatever.
I guess my main concern is that if a company wanted to direct resources at supporting Git in something (say, an editor or GUI or whatnot), and that company is of _any_ size, they are going to have to get their legal department to review this strange and almost totally unused license - only knowing that it's barely different than GPL and they know GPL will not fly. LGPL will likely be known to them and a policy may already be in place.
Think about trying to incorporate this into something proprietary, Shawn - how much of a pain is it going to be to get that license reviewed in Google? However, LGPL I'm sure there is already a reviewed policy. Now, since that may be a pain, time that Shawn could have been spending being paid to work on the library is lost because they can't use it, or it takes weeks/months to review it. That's my concern.
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.
Scott
Show 9 quoted lines
>> >> -- >> Shawn. >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >