david@xxxxxxx wrote: > On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: >> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> I.e. use the supplied custom function to do proprietary magic, such as >>> reading the object lazily from elsewhere over the network. And we will >>> never get that magic bit back. >> >> Maybe I just think too highly of the other guy, but I'd hope that >> anyone patching libgit2 like above would try to avoid it, because >> they'd face merge issues in the future. > > the issue that I see is that libgit2 will be (on most systems) a shared > library. > > what's to stop someone from taking the libgit2 code, adding the magic > proprietary piece, and selling a new libgit2 library binary 'just replace > your existing shared library with this new one and all your git related > programs gain this feature' True. The only thing that prevents that is the normal GPL. The LGPL and GPL+"gcc exception" allow this sort of mean behavior. I doubt there's enough of a market for that; replacing a library is something of a pain and if the feature really is interesting or useful someone will write a clean-room re-implementation and submit patches to do the same thing. > they would only face merge issues if they need to keep up to date with > you, and git makes it pretty easy to maintain a fork if you only have to > do one-way merging (rere) In other words, we're too good for our own good. ;-) -- Shawn. -- 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
