On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
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.
how would the LGPL of GPL+gcc extention allow this? if they modify the
code in the library and then distribute the modified library wouldn't they
be required to distribute the changes to that library?
they could use the LGPL or GPL+exception library with their propriatary
program, but I don't see how they could get away with modifying the
library.
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
