Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Andreas Ericsson <ae@xxxxxx> wrote:
Do you mean if I write a patch to libgit2, send it upstream and make
it public on my website but it is not accepted upstream, I cannot link
my modified libgit2 version (i. e. libgit2 + my patch) to my non-GPL
software?
I think that's the case, yes.
It looks insane to me: I wrote the patch and made it public
but you guys did not accept it!
Well, if you wrote a patch that uses a closed-source database library
to store git objects in, how would that benefit the community even if
you published the patch?
The case I had in mind is not that but this: say I write a patch which
is totally open-source and uses only open-source software to add some
feature to libgit2 but I want to link that libgit2 + mypatch to a
closed source application (say, for instance, software for military
use, which I'm not allowed to open source). To state it clearly:
- My contribution is 100% open source
- My contribution is 100% towards libgit2
- In fact, I could add that very feature to my application instead of
libgit2 but as I'm open-source-friendly, I decide to contribute that
patch to libgit2.
For some reason, that patch:
- Is not accepted for some time (for instance, I'm thinking in that
tcl/tk limitation which is preventing Junio from merging a patch, it's
been in the "what's cooking" for some weeks now)
- Or is not accepted at all
According to what you said, I only have two options:
- Either I fork libgit2, or
- I keep my feature in my application and do not contribute my feature
to libgit2
It looks even more insane now!
No, it's still sane. You can keep the code in your application until
that patch is applied upstream. Besides, given the nature of shared
libraries you'd probably have to fall back to the version in your
app for quite some time anyways.
What about rephrasing the libgcc exception to something like: "if you
have a patch, and sent us that patch, but we put the patch in stand-by
or declided the patch, you are still allowed to combine libgit2 with
your closed-source application". After all, the fault is not in the
closed-source part (I contributed the patch, it is 100% open-source
and only uses 100% open-source) but in the libgit2 part (patch is on
hold or not accepted at all).
Rephrasing an existing license is really, really stupid, as it means
companies that want to build stuff on top of it will have to do the
legal procedure all over again.
--
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
