On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Thomas Rast <t...@thomasrast.ch> wrote:
> David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes:
>> Thomas Rast <t...@thomasrast.ch> writes:
>>> Motivation: I believe that migrating to libgit2 is the better approach,
>>> medium term, than rewriting everything ourselves to be nice, clean and
>>> thread-safe.  I took a shot a while ago at making the pack reading code
>>> thread-safe, but it's adding mess when we could simply replace it all by
>>> the already thread-safe libgit2 calls.  It also helps shake out
>>> incompatibilities in libgit2.
>> That would either require forking libgit2 for Git use or stop dead any
>> contributions to that rather central part of the git codebase from
>> contributors not wanting their contributions to get reused in binary
>> proprietary software.
>> It would also mean that no serious forward-going work (like developing
>> new packing formats or network protocols) can be done on a pure GPLv2
>> codebase any more.  So anybody insisting on contributing work under the
>> current Git license only would be locked out from working on significant
>> parts of Git and could no longer propose changes in central parts.
>> Now this can all be repealed by the "developing the atomic bomb does not
>> mean that one has to use it" argument but even if one does not use it,
>> the world with and without it are different worlds and occupy mindshare
>> and suggest "solutions" and "diplomacy" involving it.
>> So this is definitely a large step towards a situation where erosion of
>> the existing license and related parts of the community becomes more
>> attractive.
>> There is the rationale "we can always say "no" at the end".  How do you
>> explain this "no" to the student who invested significant amounts of
>> work into this, in a project proposed by the Git developers?
>> This definitely should not be "we'll think about it if and when that
>> project is finished" material.
> Yes, all of this is true.  However, you are painting a big devil on the
> wall.
> Second, how many contributions would actually have been prevented by
> GPLv2+LE licensing?

Interesting data point, I helped get libgit2 started in the first few
days of its existence and discussed the license on the mailing list. I
eventually stopped contributing, partly because of the GPLv2+LE
license it uses.


I am not as interested in using the GPL for my work as David Kastrup
is, but I wasn't really thrilled with GPLv2+LE.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to