Re: Licensing and the library version of git

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

 



On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Grzegorz Kulewski wrote:
> > 
> > I think that part of the anwser for question "Why do people use GIT?" is that
> > they trust you and other maintainers that you do a good and stable job. Won't
> > creating several ports/forks/whatever destroy at least part of this?
> 
> Sure. But the point is, the GPLv2 isn't exactly up for discussion. People 
> can complain all they want, but if they want to trust me, they'll take the 
> GPLv2. It's that easy.

I think there'd be a justification for licensing part of git like sparse 
is licensed, for the same reasons. It wouldn't include any of the 
interesting operations, probably, but it would be worth having a canonical 
implementation of reading and writing the data structures, so other 
implementations don't screw that up. I wouldn't like to have someone write 
a version that generated subtly corrupt git objects that it accepts along 
with proper objects, such that we have to work around the breakage. It's a 
bit less likely to happen if there's no licensing reason not to use the 
same code.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
-
: 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]