Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-12 Thread Chris Friesen
Petr Baudis wrote: Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:50:48AM CEST, I got a letter Well, yes, but the last merge point search may not be so simple: A --1---26---7 B\ `-4-. / C `-3-5' Now, when at 7, your last merge point is not 1, but 2. ...and this is obviously wrong, sorr

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-12 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:50:48AM CEST, I got a letter where Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 10:39:40AM CEST, I got a letter > where Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:

Re: Re: Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-12 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 10:39:40AM CEST, I got a letter where Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: ..snip.. > > Basically, when you look at merge(1) : > > > > SYNOPSIS > >merge [ options ] file1 file2 file3 > > DESCRIP

Re: Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-12 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:20:18AM CEST, I got a letter > where "Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > > >Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 05:46:38PM CEST, I got a letter > > >where "Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told

Re: Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:20:18AM CEST, I got a letter where "Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > >Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 05:46:38PM CEST, I got a letter > >where "Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > >..snip.. > >> Graydon Hoare. (By

Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Adam J. Richter
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:45:38 +0200, Peter Baudis wrote: > Hello, > please do not trim the cc list so agressively. Sorry. I read the list from a web site that does not show the cc lists. I'll try to cc more people from the relevant discussions though. On the other hand, I've dropped Linus fro

Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Petr Baudis
Hello, please do not trim the cc list so agressively. Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 05:46:38PM CEST, I got a letter where "Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... ..snip.. > Graydon Hoare. (By the way, I would prefer that git just punt to > user level programs for diff and

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Florian Weimer
* Petr Baudis: >> Almost certainly, v3 will be incompatible with v2 because it adds >> further restrictions. This means that your proposal would result in >> software which is not redistributable by third parties. > > Hmm, what would be actually the point in introducing further > restrictions? An

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Adam J. Richter
On 2005-04-11, Linus Torvalds wrote: >I'm inclined to go with GPLv2 just because it's the most common one [...] You may want to use a file from GPL'ed monotone that implements a substantial diff optimization described in the August 1989 paper by Sun Wu, Udi Manber and Gene Myers ("An O(NP)

Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:40:00AM CEST, I got a letter where Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > * Ingo Molnar: > > > is there any fundamental problem with going with v2 right now, and then > > once v3 is out and assuming it looks ok, all newly copyrightable bits >

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Florian Weimer
* Ingo Molnar: > is there any fundamental problem with going with v2 right now, and then > once v3 is out and assuming it looks ok, all newly copyrightable bits > (new files, rewrites, substantial contributions, etc.) get a v3 > copyright? (and the collection itself would be v3 too) That method

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Btw, does anybody have strong opinions on the license? I didn't put in > a COPYING file exactly because I was torn between GPLv2 and OSL2.1. > > I'm inclined to go with GPLv2 just because it's the most common one, > but I was wondering if anybody r

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-10 Thread Nur Hussein
> Btw, does anybody have strong opinions on the license? I didn't put in a > COPYING file exactly because I was torn between GPLv2 and OSL2.1. I think GPLv2 would create the least amount of objection in the community, so I'd probably want to go with that. Nur Hussein - To unsubsc

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 02:20:52AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > Btw, does anybody have strong opinions on the license? I didn't put in a > COPYING file exactly because I was torn between GPLv2 and OSL2.1. > > I'm inclined to go with G

GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
Btw, does anybody have strong opinions on the license? I didn't put in a COPYING file exactly because I was torn between GPLv2 and OSL2.1. I'm inclined to go with GPLv2 just because it's the most common one, but I was wondering if anybody really had strong opinions. For example, I'd really ma