On Friday, February 17, 2023 4:22 PM, brian m. carlson wrote: >On 2023-02-17 at 21:12:23, Emily Shaffer wrote: >> Hi folks, > >Hey, > >> I'm looking forward to the discussion! > >While I'm not personally interested in the VFS work, I think it's a great idea to turn >more of the code into libraries (or at least make it more library-like), and so I'm fully >in support of this approach. When I send patches in the future, I'll try to make sure >that they're friendly to this goal. I am uncertain about this, from a licensing standpoint. Typically, when one links in a library from one project, the license from that project may inherit into your own project. AFAIK, GPLv3 has this implied provision - I do not think it is explicit, but the implication seems to be there. Making git libraries has the potential to cause git's license rights to be incorporated into other products. I am suggesting that we would need to tread carefully in this area. Using someone else's DLL is not so bad, as the code is not bound together, but may also cause ambiguities depending on whether the licenses are conflicting or not. I am not suggesting that this is a bad idea, just one that should be handled carefully. --Randall
