jhell <jh...@dataix.net> wrote: > Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but it is not going to > matter much to what extent a license has to do with this besides > ease of mind maybe. We would not be using the source for the VCS > in a repo that holds the source that is being distributed and > none of the contained software would be effected by a GPL'd VCS. > I don't believe the GPL reaches out that far as to where it can > effect the contents of a repo even if it would happen to be GPLv3.
My primary concern is not that the GPL would extend to the contents of a GPL'd VCS -- AFAIK it would not -- but that the whole point of moving to a _distributed_ VCS is presumably that a significant fraction of ports contributors (not just committers and/or maintainers) would be running the VCS locally so as to maintain repositories. I have the impression that some fraction of those potential contributors will be less likely to participate if the price of doing so is running a VCS that is GPL'd. Beyone that, we should not overlook (what I understand to be) the general policy that I mentioned earlier: > >>> AFAIK FreeBSD prefers to avoid GPL in the base or in critical > >>> widely-used infrastructure if a viable non-GPL alternative > >>> exists. As I understand it, what is being suggested is the adoption of a new code base for a significant piece of infrastructure. I think the proposal is at less risk of being summarily rejected if it can viably be based on BSD-licensed code rather than on GPL'd code. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"