Nicolas Pitre wrote:
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.
I agree with Nicolas, for what it's worth. Although I realize my small
contributions to the git code can be trivially rewritten, I think that
will definitely be trickier with Nicolas' contributions.
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".
For dynamic libraries, yes, as you can replace them in-flight if you need
to. For static libraries, it's a different matter. I think the gcc exception
is rather special, as parts of gcc is the dynamic linker initialization code,
which has to be shipped in object form and included in all executables
produced with gcc. Perhaps we'd be better off asking one of EFF's lawyers
what each license means, exactly.
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@xxxxxx
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
--
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
