Gitbox

Hi All,

I'm curious if Gitbox is in violation of the Git's GPL. http://www.gitboxapp.com/

Thank you, Daniel Searles Tech Support Media Lab, Inc.

On Apr 13, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Daniel Searles wrote:

 From <http://www.gitboxapp.com/faq.html#gpl>:

"The application package contains a compiled official version 1.7.3.2 of the Git content tracker. Gitbox neither links (statically or dynamically) against Git nor uses custom interfaces to interact with it. Git binaries are provided for your convenience only. You can replace bundled binaries with any compatible build of the current version of Git or newer."

That appears to comply with both the letter and spirit of the GPL.

Josh

On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 11:16 -0700, Daniel Searles wrote:

Well, it appears that he may have implemented "git" on his own, or at the very least he's trying to imply that he did.

http://www.gitboxapp.com/faq.html#gpl

Perhaps he'll have a more enlightening reply (please use reply all).

On Apr 13, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Drew Northup wrote:

He very clearly says that he ships Git, not a reimplementation.

Josh

On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 12:09 -0700, Joshua Juran wrote:

He also clearly stated that he's not calling git command-line tools...

"Gitbox neither links (statically or dynamically) against Git nor uses custom interfaces to interact with it. Git binaries are provided for your convenience only."

I'm hoping he'll have a more complete statement for all of us.

On Apr 13, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Drew Northup wrote:

I wonder why he would ship them, then.

Calling execve() is not dynamic linking, that I'm aware of.

I think you've misinterpreted his words, but I agree that a clarification to set minds at ease would be appropriate.

Josh

Drew> He also clearly stated that he's not calling git command-line tools...

Drew> "Gitbox neither links (statically or dynamically) against Git nor uses Drew> custom interfaces to interact with it. Git binaries are provided for Drew> your convenience only."

Huh? How do you get "not using git CLI" there? He's not using *custom* interfaces, but the *standard* interfaces are more than enough.

He's made new porcelein, and using the plumbing directly. That's exactly why we have plumbing in git, right?

On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 12:41 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:

If that's what he's doing then why does he state that the git binaries are "for your convenience only"--strongly implying his program will work in the absence thereof? I'm hoping he just made a typo--as what he said is there in plain English, and is somewhat contradicted by the next sentence. If he's indeed using the plumbing then the binaries are required--which is indeed what they are there for.

I think that I've already proved myself to be one of the list's resident grammar nazis. If you wish to dispute my interpretation of his grammar please contact me directly and don't bother the rest of the list.

I suspect that when he gets a chance he'll be able to clarify what he's doing well enough on his own.

Drew Northup, Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 04:04:49PM -0400:

I didn't detect that implication at all. I took it to mean that he is distributing Git alongside his frontend because it would not function properly without it. It's a "convenience" in the sense that if he didn't bundle the Git binaries, you'd have to install them separately in order to use his product. Why would he bother to include Git itself if the product worked just fine without it?

Sending this to the list anyway, because it seems germane to the overall discussion.

On Apr 13, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Drew Northup wrote:

I suspect he considers it convenient to download the app and use it immediately without having to install Git manually, but wants to clarify that GitBox works with later versions as well. In other words, Git 1.7.3.2 is provided for *convenience*, not due to compatibility restrictions.

Strongly implying? I read the exact opposite -- GitBox clearly depends on an external git binary.

It's ambiguous. The next sentence clarifies it, ruling out one interpretation and therefore confirming the other. In regular expressions this is called backtracking.

I decline your request; I think it's better to have a public record of the issue being settled, if for no other reason than that others don't waste time making points that I've already made.

Josh

On Apr 13, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Drew Northup wrote:

Yes, it will work without needing the git binaries he includes. If you already have git binaries (e.g., from macports) you can use those. Hence, the ones he provides are for your convenience, letting you use Gitbox without having to deal with finding and installing git yourself.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Drew Northup <drew.northup@maine.edu> wrote:

Not at all; as others have explained, you're reading too much into that.

I believe what he is doing is often called "mere aggregation". Perfectly legal, IMO.

I guess he just shouldn't sell it as a Version Control App, but only as a Repository Manager.

So, the description: "Gitbox is a Git repository manager" is clearly saying that it is just a repository manager (what some people like to call a 'bow' depending on their mood)

The subtitle of his app: "The missing version control on a Mac" raises (maybe too much) the impression that he has written a version control system.

Vincent

On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 15:22 +0530, Sitaram Chamarty wrote:

I deal with stupid user tricks on a daily basis. Most people that I've met that aren't very computer savvy (including a number of web programmers) would interpret what he wrote to mean "I'm not going to use the command-line tools, so I can delete them and free up space on my disk" (despite the fact that I'm pretty sure all of us actually agree that's not what he intended). Sating that "Gitbox requires the Git command-line tools and other binaries," and that "I have included version xxx with Gitbox for your convenience, but you may use any newer compatible version as well," would be far more clear. (The key word is "requires.") You'd be surprised (or, well, probably not in your personal case) how many programmers would benefit from it being stated that clearly.

I'm pretty sure that's what's going on as well. We've been copying him this whole time so if he feels the need to speak up he can do so.

merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:

That agrees with my reading of the page.

GPLv2 section 3 (c) allows distribution of compiled executable without source by only pointing at the place the distributor got an offer to the source code when the distributor got the compiled executable it is passing on, and that is quite close to (but not exactly is --- I think the distributor compiled the executable, not passing on) what the Gitbox site is doing (i.e. distributing executable without distributing the source).

However, 3 (c) is allowed only for noncommercial distributor that passes compiled executable along from its upstream source, so that part may need to be fixed, I suspect, to comply with section 3 by going in either subsections 3 (a) or 3 (b) route.

IANAL of course.

Junio> However, 3 (c) is allowed only for noncommercial distributor that passes Junio> compiled executable along from its upstream source, so that part may need Junio> to be fixed, I suspect, to comply with section 3 by going in either Junio> subsections 3 (a) or 3 (b) route.

It's interesting also to note that the GPL uses the term "noncommercial" without ever defining it. Could gitbox argue that it is charging for his code, and not for git, and therefore, it's a "noncommercial" distribution of git which just happens to be aggregated?

Daniel Searles <dsearles@medialab.com> writes:

It is graphical _interface_ for Git; I assume that it _uses_ Git. Using a program, as opposed to including it (making derivative work), is not covered by GPLv2.

It's not only proprietary Git GUI: there is also Sprout, SmartGit, SourceTree (I think: my information might be outdated).

Daniel> It seems to me that since gitbox is useless without git it is Daniel> definitely in violation of the GPL. My interpretation of the GPL Daniel> is based off of the following article: Daniel> http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL

And note the author of that opinion, RMS, who would always rule in favor of more things needing to be under the GPL as the One True License.

And it's also about readline.a, which *has* to be linked into a binary to make it work. None of the git code is being *linked* in.

Particularly, I see this phrase in the actual license of Git (version 2, not version 3 under which Readline is distributed):

    Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
    your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
    exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
    collective works based on the Program.

    In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
    with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
    a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
    the scope of this License.

I'd consider the git binary distribution to be an aggregation with gitbox, not a "linking", presuming that one of the following has also happened:

      3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
    under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
    Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
        source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
        1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
        or,

        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
        years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
        cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
        machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
        distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
        customarily used for software interchange; or,

        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
        to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
        allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
        received the program in object code or executable form with such
        an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

I cannot confirm that one of these has been done, but let's say it has.

As already said in this thread, if "execve()" is considered a "linking", then *everything* in a typical Linux distro would *have* to be GPL. That's patently not the case.