On 2023-02-17 at 22:04:19, rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > 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. I think it's pretty clear that if software used Git's libraries, that the result would be GPLv2. That might be fine for some projects, and for others, libgit2 would be more appealing. -- brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them) Toronto, Ontario, CA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
