5 ms·

I'm not a developer, (1) GIT is GPL licensed. OpenBSD does not use GPL code.[1] (2) The developers saw something about git that they thought they could impro

I'm not a developer, (1) GIT is GPL licensed. OpenBSD does not use GPL code.[1] (2) The developers saw something about git that they thought they could improve. (usually based on security/code-correctness, see: OpenSSL, OpenSSH, unwind, openrsync, etc..) [1] https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html

microcolonel 7y ago
> OpenBSD does not use GPL code OpenBSD has used a lot of GPLv2 code, until recently their platform compiler was a heavily-patched version of the last GPLv2 version of GCC. There are git implementations under permissive licenses as well. And it seems like GOT is yet another such implementation.
- koenigdavidmj 7y ago
  You’re correct, but they also have a strong desire to replace these if possible. There was an old effort to replace gcc with the old pcc before they eventually settled on clang.
- brynet 7y ago
  > a lot of GPLv2 code "A lot" is quite the exaggeration for "at most 5". GPLv2 licenced software: • cvs • texinfo (for software lacking proper mdoc(7) manuals) • mkhybrid • readline • gcc/gdb/bintuils, supporting libraries libstdc++/libiberty* The amount of GPL licensed software the resides in OpenBSD base is trivial compared to the entirety of software comprising a complete Unix operating system. Including its own implementation of a wide variety of network protocols, and being the home of OpenSSH, and tmux and many more. https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html * On architectures that have transitioned to a LLVM toolchain, we already have a reference platform (arm64) which doesn't build or install gcc/binutils or supporting libraries, this will happen on other platforms as well, where they're currently installed alongside clang. OpenBSD has already transitioned to clang, lld, libc++/libc++abi on i386/amd64/armv7/octeon.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > cvs You know, I had forgotten that they failed to bring OpenCVS to bear. Isn't it kinda silly to be concerned about replacing a GPLv2-licensed SCM with another one?
    - Fnoord 7y ago
      What are you on about? CVS is GPL. OpenCVS is BSDL. Git is GPL. Got is BSDL. I got nothing against GPL, but I am pro diversification (competition = good, monoculture = bad). Furthermore, these projects add more than just different license. Mainly, better security. PS: Got, trendy name. Got got?
      - microcolonel 7y ago
        Sure, but the idea seems to be that using git, as is, would mean relying on more GPLv2 software; my point is that it doesn't. By all means, if OpenCVS or Got were actually brought to a useful state, that'd be great, but there's no great crisis of new GPLv2 reliance in using Git. I, for one, would welcome a git clone (hah!) built to the core OpenBSD quality standard, but it seems unlikely that anyone cares enough to do that. In the mean time, justifying not using Git for OpenBSD on the basis of license falls flat, when you realize you're using GNU CVS anyway.
        ben_bai 7y ago
        > I, for one, would welcome a git clone (hah!) built to the core OpenBSD quality standard, but it seems unlikely that anyone cares enough to do that. That would be got(1). Since yesterday version 0.3, 0.4 and then 0.5 was "released". It's still in early development but good enough for a casual user like me to import the OpenBSD src and start using it. Created some commits, branches, performed rebases. Looks great, but still some rough edges. Also tog(1) is great.
        Fnoord 7y ago
        Hi, I clearly misunderstood your post. I implied you didn't know the licenses while I did not understand the "to bear" part of your post, at all. Furthermore, I am sorry if I came across as offensive. You make a good point in this post, clarifying your viewpoint. A viewpoint I can relate to.
yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
> usually based on security/code-correctness, But note that they also tend to consider usability to be part of security and correctness; if the tool is technically correct but nobody can use it without shooting their own foot, then the tool is bad. Hence things like signify - yes gpg or openssl(1) can do what it does, generally, but you'd struggle to use them and be sure that you'd done it right.

microcolonel 7y ago

> OpenBSD does not use GPL code OpenBSD has used a lot of GPLv2 code, until recently their platform compiler was a heavily-patched version of the last GPLv2 version of GCC. There are git implementations under permissive licenses as well. And it seems like GOT is yet another such implementation.

koenigdavidmj 7y ago
You’re correct, but they also have a strong desire to replace these if possible. There was an old effort to replace gcc with the old pcc before they eventually settled on clang.
brynet 7y ago
> a lot of GPLv2 code "A lot" is quite the exaggeration for "at most 5". GPLv2 licenced software: • cvs • texinfo (for software lacking proper mdoc(7) manuals) • mkhybrid • readline • gcc/gdb/bintuils, supporting libraries libstdc++/libiberty* The amount of GPL licensed software the resides in OpenBSD base is trivial compared to the entirety of software comprising a complete Unix operating system. Including its own implementation of a wide variety of network protocols, and being the home of OpenSSH, and tmux and many more. https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html * On architectures that have transitioned to a LLVM toolchain, we already have a reference platform (arm64) which doesn't build or install gcc/binutils or supporting libraries, this will happen on other platforms as well, where they're currently installed alongside clang. OpenBSD has already transitioned to clang, lld, libc++/libc++abi on i386/amd64/armv7/octeon.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > cvs You know, I had forgotten that they failed to bring OpenCVS to bear. Isn't it kinda silly to be concerned about replacing a GPLv2-licensed SCM with another one?
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    What are you on about? CVS is GPL. OpenCVS is BSDL. Git is GPL. Got is BSDL. I got nothing against GPL, but I am pro diversification (competition = good, monoculture = bad). Furthermore, these projects add more than just different license. Mainly, better security. PS: Got, trendy name. Got got?
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      Sure, but the idea seems to be that using git, as is, would mean relying on more GPLv2 software; my point is that it doesn't. By all means, if OpenCVS or Got were actually brought to a useful state, that'd be great, but there's no great crisis of new GPLv2 reliance in using Git. I, for one, would welcome a git clone (hah!) built to the core OpenBSD quality standard, but it seems unlikely that anyone cares enough to do that. In the mean time, justifying not using Git for OpenBSD on the basis of license falls flat, when you realize you're using GNU CVS anyway.
      - ben_bai 7y ago
        > I, for one, would welcome a git clone (hah!) built to the core OpenBSD quality standard, but it seems unlikely that anyone cares enough to do that. That would be got(1). Since yesterday version 0.3, 0.4 and then 0.5 was "released". It's still in early development but good enough for a casual user like me to import the OpenBSD src and start using it. Created some commits, branches, performed rebases. Looks great, but still some rough edges. Also tog(1) is great.
      - Fnoord 7y ago
        Hi, I clearly misunderstood your post. I implied you didn't know the licenses while I did not understand the "to bear" part of your post, at all. Furthermore, I am sorry if I came across as offensive. You make a good point in this post, clarifying your viewpoint. A viewpoint I can relate to.

yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago

> usually based on security/code-correctness, But note that they also tend to consider usability to be part of security and correctness; if the tool is technically correct but nobody can use it without shooting their own foot, then the tool is bad. Hence things like signify - yes gpg or openssl(1) can do what it does, generally, but you'd struggle to use them and be sure that you'd done it right.