4 ms·
It also has to do with licensing around the tool itself (git(1))[0]. FreeBSD is licensed under BSD-compatible licenses, and will avoid reliance on tools that ar
by moviuro 6y ago
It also has to do with licensing around the tool itself (git(1))[0]. FreeBSD is licensed under BSD-compatible licenses, and will avoid reliance on tools that are licensed in an incompatible way. The advent of git-compatible alternatives[1] with BSD/ISC licenses make the move easier.
NB: the git format itself is not licensed, so only the tooling needs to have a "correct" license.
[0] https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/COPYING https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/COPYING is GPL2
[1] https://gameoftrees.org/ https://gameoftrees.org/
- pwdisswordfish4 6y agoBitKeeper has been available under Apache license for several years now. It's interesting that they didn't choose it. Not enough third-party use to justify adoption?
- cnst 6y agoI can't imagine that OpenBSD's got has anything to do with FreeBSD's transition. Replacing GPL'ed Git with a BSD alternative sounds interesting -- if not for anything else, then simply to combat the monoculture -- but assuming that developers are too stupid or stubborn to learn how to use a new VCS, and absolutely MUST have a `got checkout` in place of `git clone`, just because that's how CVS calls it, seems kind of silly. Of course, you can't achieve world domination if you aren't any different, but having a brand-new `checkout` command -- is that really what's missing from Git?