On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Git is currently mostly "GPLv2 or later". A BSDish license was > mentioned, because it's the most permissive one and that nobody cared > that much, though a LGPL/GPL-with-GCC-exception would probably fly. I do care. I think the BSD license is too permissive. There are really nifty pieces of code in Git that I would be really sorry to see go proprietary. > Many of the people needing a library for libgit are probably reading the > list, I'll let them comment. The kind of license you propose would > totally suite my needs, and I think, most of the one discussed at > GitTogether'08 (except for the eclipse people disliking GPL'ed stuff, > but anyways there was the issue of C code being non pure java anyways, > so maybe Shawn can comment on that bit, I don't recall the exact > specifics I must reckon). Eclipse is Java and that issue is already solved with JGIT which doesn't reuse C code from git. > OT: FWIW I prefer BSDish licenses (even the MIT actually) for libraries > because I believe that computing is overall better if everyone can use > the right tool for the task, and I don't want to prevent people from > using good stuff (I hope I write good stuff ;P) because of the license. Everybody can and does link against glibc on Linux which is LGPL. So that doesn't affect "usage". > And I don't care about people don't giving back to me, those are not the > kind of people who would have given back if it was GPL'ed anyways. > But I understand this is a completely personal view, and I'm not even > trying to persuade you :) Sure, and that's where we differ. I let you use my code for free, as long as you give me back your improvements to it. This way everybody stays honnest. I think this is Linus' view as well which he often resume as "tit for tat". Nicolas -- 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
