Re: Licensing and the library version of git

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Dear diary, on Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 02:54:54PM CEST, I got a letter
where Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@xxxxxxxxx> said that...
> In general libraries should be licensed LGPL to avoid the license
> incompatibility problem. A GPL library forces the main app to be GPL
> too.

But really another main app here (Git) is ending up in the library.

You can still always use the "Git ABI" - the commands. Or you could try
having a GPL'd "Git/Eclipse toolkit" which would reduce the barrier to
only single exec per Git invocation or something, but it would be
probably somewhat tricky on the derived works playground.

> You may like trying to force GPL onto the app but many apps are
> stuck with the license they have and can't be changed since there is
> no way to contact the original developers.

At this point, git-shortlog lists exactly 200 people (at least entries
like Unknown or No name are all linux@xxxxxxxxxxx ;-).

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
Snow falling on Perl. White noise covering line noise.
Hides all the bugs too. -- J. Putnam
-
: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]