First........... is there really a need to re-license it?
If so then the choice of license is IMHO rather important.
Depends. Sure, I gave permission to copy some of my code for JGIT
because 1) JGIT is Java code in which I have little interest, 2) the
different license was justified by the nature of the JGIT project, and
3) although no license convey this I asked for the C version of git to
remain the authoritative reference and that any improvements done to JGIT
first be usable in the C version under the GPL.
Of course a library might need a different license than the GPL to be
widely useful from a linkage stand point, but the code within that
library does not need to be miles away from the GPL. What I personally
care about is for improvements to my code to always be contributed back,
which pretty much discards BSD-like licenses.
My favorite license for a library is the GPL with the gcc exception,
i.e. what libraries coming with gcc are using. They're GPL but with an
exception allowing them to be linked with anything. And because
everything on a Linux system, including proprietary applications, is
likely linked against those gcc libs, then there is nothing that would
prevent libgit to be linked against anything as well. But the library
code itself has GPL protection.
For reference, here's the exception text:
In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License, the
Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to link the
compiled version of this file into combinations with other programs,
and to distribute those combinations without any restriction coming
from the use of this file. (The General Public License restrictions
do apply in other respects; for example, they cover modification of
the file, and distribution when not linked into a combine
executable.)
Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html