Only GPL v2?

[burdges]

Just noticed the license is GPL v2 only. If I understand correctly, one cannot distribute binaries that link libgit2 with Apache, XFree86, etc. licensed software.

RMS made a case that libraries should use GPL rather than LGPL when a "library provides a significant unique capability". I suppose libgit2 could easily fit that description, but maybe not in everyone's minds since git is such a fixture now.

A switch to LGPL v3 might maximize usability of the library, while maintaining the "community building" benefits of GPL over permissive licenses. I presume the "or later" clause can again be dropped from the LGPL since the FSF explicitly designed in that feature.

In practice, I'd wager this is all a moot point since the linking restriction only impacts the program linking to libgit2, not other the libraries the program uses that're licensed under Apache, XFree86, etc.

[arrbee]

libgit2 is under the GPL v2 with Linking Exception license, a la the GCC runtime. This allows the linking of libgit2 into applications which are not themselves GPL, but requires you to donate back any changes you make to libgit2. It has worked pretty well so far IMO.

Is there a specific case where we have not "maximized usability" of the library that you feel is missing?

[burdges]

Oops, I'm not seeing the forest of the trees! lol