I'm sorry - why is that better than LGPL? Wouldn't it be better to use a license that people have heard of rather than one that can't be looked up or it's implications easily researched? What is this affording the library that offsets the headaches of everyone trying to figure out if they can use it or not? Scott On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: >> >> > My take on the consensus for the license part of the discussion is >> > that libgit2 should be under the "GPL gcc library" license. >> > >> > BTW, I can't actually find a copy of that license; the only thing >> > I can locate in the GCC SVN tree is a copy of the LGPL. >> >> The exception is usually found at the top of files constituting >> libgcc.a. One example is gcc/config/arm/ieee754-df.S. ;-) > > Headers updated. Its now GPL+gcc library exception. > > Not that the 5 lines of useful code there really needs copyright, > but hey, whatever. > > -- > 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 > -- 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
