Re: Approxidate licensing

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

 



Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Would the three of you agree to license date.c under the LGPL or BSD? It 
> looks like you're the only authors of non-trivial changes [1]. And it seems 
> reasonable to want the date parsing thing under non-GPL terms outside of 
> git.

I do not think I have enough code in there to influence the
license of that file, so what I say below does not matter on
this particular issue.

The project as a whole is GPLv2 and GPLv2 only, but date.c is
isolated enough that I think there are valid form of using it in
your program without making your program a derived work.  In
other words, I do not think I have (even if I had written
significant part of it, which I didn't) right to demand to see
the rest of your program if you used date.c.  I do not think I
even have rights to ask about what kind of program it is.

My wishes about the code I write for this project is very
simple:

     If you improve my code that had helped you to make it help
     you even better, I would like to have that change back, so
     that your change would help me the same way as it helped
     you.

The readers may have noticed that I have slight problem with
GPLv2; in my wish it does not matter if you distribute the
result or not.  And I am selfish.  It is not about helping my
users, but about helping me ;-).

-
To unsubscribe from this list: 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]