> On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 12:41:22AM +0000,
david@lang.hm wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
>>
>>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I.e. use the supplied custom function to do proprietary magic, such as
>>>> reading the object lazily from elsewhere over the network. And we will
>>>> never get that magic bit back.
>>>
>>> As a maintainer I'd never accept such a patch. I'd ask for the
>>> code under read_object_custom, or toss the patch on the floor.
>>> But that doesn't stop them from distributing the patched sources
>>> like above, keeping the fun bits in the closed source portion of
>>> the executable they distribute.
>>>
>>> Maybe I just think too highly of the other guy, but I'd hope that
>>> anyone patching libgit2 like above would try to avoid it, because
>>> they'd face merge issues in the future.
>>
>> the issue that I see is that libgit2 will be (on most systems) a shared
>> library.
>>
>> what's to stop someone from taking the libgit2 code, adding the magic
>> proprietary piece, and selling a new libgit2 library binary 'just replace
>> your existing shared library with this new one and all your git related
>> programs gain this feature'
>
> Its license. GPL even with GCC exception would not allow you to do that.
> Though they could propose a fork of the library patched, with the patch
> distributed. The downside would be that their code would not be binary
> compatible with the "true" libgit2, so they would probably have to
> change the name to avoid namespace clashes, or overwrite the "real"
> library.
