gitoxide?

Posted Nov 23, 2024 0:19 UTC (Sat) by hunger (subscriber, #36242)
In reply to: gitoxide? by gren
Parent article: NonStop discussion around adding Rust to Git

Oh, git can take gitoxide code and relicense that to GPL just fine. The other way around is not an option.

gitoxide?

Posted Nov 23, 2024 7:43 UTC (Sat) by mb (subscriber, #50428) [Link]

>can take gitoxide code and relicense that to GPL just fine.

No?
A GPL project can integrate and use MIT/Apache2 code, but it can't relicense it to GPL.

gitoxide?

Posted Nov 24, 2024 15:12 UTC (Sun) by draco (subscriber, #1792) [Link] (2 responses)

That's not true as written, though it's a common misunderstanding.

They can't relicense the code, but they can combine it with GPL code and offer the combination under the GPL (while continuing to comply with the license requirements of the code that was taken).

The code that was taken can be taken again from the GPL project without complying with the GPL as long as they don't grab any of the new GPL bits.

So the existing license isn't changed. If you modify the files to strip out the copyright information and other things the license says you can't do, you will violate the license.

gitoxide?

Posted Nov 24, 2024 15:26 UTC (Sun) by intelfx (subscriber, #130118) [Link] (1 responses)

> They can't relicense the code

They most certainly can, in the colloquial meaning of the word. Both MIT and Apache-2.0 licenses (that Gitoxide is offered under) do grant the right to sublicense.

gitoxide?

Posted Dec 13, 2024 15:01 UTC (Fri) by sammythesnake (guest, #17693) [Link]

"sub-" vs. "re-" is an important distinction. Perhaps the practical implications aren't much in many issues, but they're not the same thing and if you're not careful, you can find yourself accidentally crossing the border where the distinction starts to matter, potentially with very messy consequences...