On Apr 13, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Daniel Searles wrote:
I apologize for the empty email. My SMTP server is having problems.
That is why I'm going to use this email address to write to the list.
Gah, stop doing that! :-)
I feel that gitbox and perhaps other commercial tools for git are in
violation of the GPL simply since they rely on git in order to be
useful. Take git away from gitbox and it serves no purpose. The
thread in the following link goes into depth with regards to a
program relying on code that is under a GPL license. The conclusion
made in the thread may be due to an older version of the GPL. Could
it be that gitbox isn't in violation of the GPL since git uses GPL
version 2.0 exclusively?
http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL
My shell scripts that call git are also useless without Git. Am I not
allowed to distribute my scripts under non-GPL terms? (And what about
a script that calls the nonexistent blort utility, and then someone
writes blort and distributes it under the GPL?) As I understand it,
the GPL (and the thread you mention) address linking, not utility.
RMS seemed to win this debate by arguing that his position was better
for the community. I have colleagues who understand that Git is the
best VCS available but are concerned about having to train users who
are used to IDEs. I've used a couple open source Git viewers and
would hesitate to recommend them. The option to use GitBox makes
adoption of Git more likely in this case.
CVS is a GNU project. Did FSF go after proprietary cvs wrappers?
Josh
--
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