On Mon, Apr 12 2021, Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> TODO: relicense?
So to your[1]:
> However, it is fundamentally blocked on someone willing to spend
> some time reviewing the series; this seems to be out of my
> control.
I for one find it hard to follow re-rolls of this when past discussion
isn't clarified/updated in commit messages/CLs.
So in particular in v3[2] there was a whole discussion about what what
this licence & external hosting of this codebase meant in practical
terms.
I vaguely recall that that was clarified in some way by you, but didn't
find the relevant E-Mail. Something like Google's lawyers said something
to the effect that this could just be added to git.git, no? Maybe that's
incorrect, I don't remember.
Anyway, we're now in v6, and we still have nothing but a "TODO:
relicense?" blurb here.
As noted in the past discussion I'm not interested in the
academic/theoretical side that license discussion, but the very
practical question of how this library is expected to be
integrated/maintained.
I.e. if it's meant to be 100% externally maintained and "code-dumped"
into git.git like we do with sha1collisiondetection/ that raises one set
of concerns, but if it's meant to be "eaten" by git.git that poses
another set of questions for the code review here. I.e. much of what
you're doing in later patches in this series is introducing things that
are redundant/odd if viewed if we're supposing that this code is meant
to live in git.git.
1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAFQ2z_P=MqT81gLjov6A471Z9sd69qQTep8KG8M8=LO9pJtkpQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
2. https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAFQ2z_OJQf3+b0TT6BmAV9q9G9c2icbLK0EqrEjpYmpi8g9Fsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
