Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 01:27:39 -0700 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: jhell@DataIX.net Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Distributed Version Control for ports(7) ( was: Re: autoconf update ) Message-ID: <4c99bdfb.IZQlFB9yVbtXyqe1%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <4C983C6C.9050101@DataIX.net> References: <4C91446F.3090202@bsdforen.de> <20100916171744.GA48415@hades.panopticon> <4C927ED0.5050307@bsdforen.de> <86zkvhfhaa.fsf@gmail.com> <4C92C14D.3010005@FreeBSD.org> <4C92F195.5000605@FreeBSD.org> <4C93A107.4070809@DataIX.net> <4c93f602.pzTXVEQ%2B3q2cRA23%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <4C94617B.3080702@bsdforen.de> <20100918141727.22a81b66@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <4C95AFE4.30608@DataIX.net> <174981284967033@web24.yandex.ru> <4c975197.1fY0dTyqrEwwwGi5%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009201312040.96753@tiktik.epipe.com> <4c981355.wc2y7hyfF2XUaLmh%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <4C983C6C.9050101@DataIX.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
jhell <jhell@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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4c99bdfb.IZQlFB9yVbtXyqe1%perryh>