On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Last but not least, I believe parts of git-core are currently easy to
just take. For example, any code *I* wrote, I hereby give permission to
relicense it in any of the following licenses: BSD-like, MIT-like,
WTFPL.
First........... is there really a need to re-license it?
If so then the choice of license is IMHO rather important.
at the very least you should go from GPLv2 to LGPLv2 for the library.
while it can be argued that this really shouldn't be nessasary, the water
is muddy enough that it would be a very good thing to do this.
I don't see any need to switch to a BSD/MIT/etc license for a library, the
LGPL lets it get linked with those licenses anyway.
My favorite license for a library is the GPL with the gcc exception,
i.e. what libraries coming with gcc are using. They're GPL but with an
exception allowing them to be linked with anything. And because
everything on a Linux system, including proprietary applications, is
likely linked against those gcc libs, then there is nothing that would
prevent libgit to be linked against anything as well. But the library
code itself has GPL protection.
For reference, here's the exception text:
In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License, the
Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to link the
compiled version of this file into combinations with other programs,
and to distribute those combinations without any restriction coming
from the use of this file. (The General Public License restrictions
do apply in other respects; for example, they cover modification of
the file, and distribution when not linked into a combine
executable.)
<shrug>, I don't see why this is needed with the LGPL, but I'm not a
lawyer.
David Lang
--
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
