Re: Can I change Git binary file's name when deploying Git-based product?

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 19, 2016, 18:57 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqwpr59z3y.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACaY5-uUqFxsRdwPzxAjphc=wNQhM76YJFmCZu86SpGeG1fOrw@mail.gmail.com>

은교 <eunqyo@gmail.com> writes:

> Problem is that whenever git command is executed, 'The Git command
> requires the command line developer tools. Would you like to install
> the tools now?' message comes out.

As far as I know, that is not a message Git produces, but likely to come from some magic wrapper (or "missing command handler") the distro gives its users.

Show 6 quoted lines

> I found out that when i change Git binary file's name that my product
> is executing, problem is solved. Since then i tried to read every
> licenses regarding Git but can't find a clear answer.
>
> Can i change Git binary file's name to for example 'Git-indegs',
> 'Indegs' when deploying my product?

The Git source code is licensed under GPLv2, and IIUC, there is nothing that forbids you from naming the resulting binary other than "git".

It is completely a separate issue if merely renaming the binary from "git" to another name is sufficient to keep things working. Many subcommands of Git are built into a single binary and I suspect that they would work regardless of what the name of that single binary is, but others invoke other Git subcommands while they are running, and when the do so they expect to find the other subcommand they are invoking are "git foo", not "hju foo", even if they were invoked as "hju". That too is something you can modify under the licensing terms of GPLv2, i.e. if you make such a modification and ship the binaries based on that modified source, you must make the modification available to the recipients of the binaries in the source form under the same GPLv2 license.