Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.5.4

On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 11:42:59AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

It does not matter if the person is somebody you know or you
have shared with.  I'd grant you that Luciano could have been
more diplomatic when he started his message, but I'd agree that
it is silly to refuse to install an end user program unless the
end user agrees to GPL that governs how its sources can and
cannot be used, especially if the installer does not even
install the sources to the software.

Actually, the GPL is applied to the binary form too, and it
prescribes how the program can be redistributed. There is no
restriction on how the user can run the program, but we still
must give to the user a copy of GPL in the appropriate way.
Besides, the user should acknowledge that he or she is warned
the program is provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind.
If the user cannot accept that, he or she should not run the
program.

So, the current Git installer fully adheres to GPL requirements
and installs Git in the traditional for Windows way. I don't
see anything here that can be considered as bug.

Dmitry

On Feb 7, 2008 8:23 PM, Dmitry Potapov [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 11:42:59AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

It does not matter if the person is somebody you know or you
have shared with.  I'd grant you that Luciano could have been
more diplomatic when he started his message, but I'd agree that
it is silly to refuse to install an end user program unless the
end user agrees to GPL that governs how its sources can and
cannot be used, especially if the installer does not even
install the sources to the software.

Actually, the GPL is applied to the binary form too, and it
prescribes how the program can be redistributed. There is no
restriction on how the user can run the program, but we still
must give to the user a copy of GPL in the appropriate way.
Besides, the user should acknowledge that he or she is warned
the program is provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind.
If the user cannot accept that, he or she should not run the
program.

Just out of curiosity - does this mean that MacPorts (a fink-like
package manager for OS X) ought to display the license while
installing?  Or does that somehow not apply here?