Header Space


Linux: Git Homepage

August 8, 2005 - 9:48am
Submitted by Jeremy on August 8, 2005 - 9:48am.
Linux news

Petr Baudis announced the creation of a homepage for git, the directory content manager used to manage the Linux kernel. Git was originally written by Linus Torvalds in early April of 2005 [story], and is now maintained by Junio Hamano [story]. Other online resources available for the tool include a tutorial that walks through the process of setting up and using git, a man page, and the gitweb interface providing easy browsing of the many kernel trees managed by git. The new webpage explains:

"GIT falls into the category of distributed source code management tools, similar to Arch or Darcs (or, in the commercial world, BitKeeper). Every GIT working directory is a full-fledged repository with full revision tracking capabilities, not dependent on network access to a central server."

From: Petr Baudis [email blocked]
To:  git
Subject: [RFC] git homepage
Date:	Fri, 5 Aug 2005 03:27:28 +0200


  as I promised some time ago, I finally put together a simple GIT
homepage proposal now available at:


  Basically, I took r3 of Ryan Anderson's synopsis, pruned and rewrote
it a bit, added some hypertext and tried to very briefly cover the
porcelain as well. Please tell me what you think, and if you happen to
be author of some porcelain, already mentioned or not, feel encouraged
to send me updates to your description (which should stay brief, though)
etc. And if you don't author any porcelain, send me updates anyway. :-)

  If you like it, it's only up to Junio to decide how official to make
it and possibly/probably take over its maintenance (or designate someone
more suitable than me to do that).


				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
If you want the holes in your knowledge showing up try teaching
someone.  -- Alan Cox

Related Links:

Git is not an SCM

August 8, 2005 - 9:18pm
erikharrison (not verified)

From the website: "GIT falls into the category of distributed source code management tools".

Actually, Git isn't a SCM, distributed or otherwise. Git is a userspace, content addressable filesystem, with some odd semantics for versioning support.

Thinking of Git as a SCM is not only technically wrong, it's illegal. We could debate whether or not Git is a SCM all day and night - it certainly isn't a user friendly one, hence the various projects building layers above it - but the important part is that the BitKeeper licence has bound Linus to not develop an SCM. So the projects official page calling it an SCM is a dangerous road to go down.

I think this has been correct

August 9, 2005 - 1:13am
Anonymous -yep (not verified)

I think this has been corrected meanwhile.

Thinking of Git as a SCM is n

August 9, 2005 - 2:14am
Anonümous (not verified)

Thinking of Git as a SCM is not only technically wrong, it's illegal.

I don't think so: Git is an SCM. Go try and sue me!

Is that you Larry McVoy?

August 9, 2005 - 2:34am
Anon (not verified)

Is that you Larry McVoy?

If something is illegal there

August 9, 2005 - 3:01am
peschmae (not verified)

If something is illegal there it is not "Thinking of Git as a SCM". I can think what I want - I'm a free country here :p

BK License

August 9, 2005 - 4:57am

I don't think the BK license has any power once you stop using the product...

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny


August 10, 2005 - 2:48am
Kaa (not verified)

IANAL, too, but I guess BitMovers could claim that Linus violated their free license and ask for compensation, the amount of which would correspond to the commercial license cost.

Also, because OSDL is a corporate entity (iirc), that costs would be not for 1 license, but for every OSDL developer ever touching FreeBK. That would be in the order of at least hundreds kilo $, I would say.

Contract powers

August 10, 2005 - 1:03pm
Anonymous Rex (not verified)

Since the BitKeeper license is a contract, it can bind you to certain things even after you stop using the tool. I seem to recall there was a 1-year moritorium on developing an SCM if you had used the tool. So arguably Linus could be in violation by developing a new SCM.

It seems quite unlikely that Larry would sue Linus for this (apparently they get along well IRL), but if he did I imagine Linus could argue that the contract was voided when the free BitKeeper was removed from the market.

It seems quite unlikely tha

August 10, 2005 - 5:46pm
Carlos Cesar (not verified)

It seems quite unlikely that Larry would sue Linus for this

Wanna bet?

Contract terminated.

August 13, 2005 - 7:17pm

Larry terminated the contract when he revoked the "free" license that allowed the Linux kernel team to use BK to begin with. You could easily argue that its non-compete clause ceases to be binding at that point.

The 1 year clause was never a

August 15, 2005 - 10:53pm

The 1 year clause was never actually in the license. Larry McVoy said that he wanted to introduce it because some people thought they were *never* allowed to work on a competitor (but it didn't say that either). Having checked over the BK license pretty carefully, it really doesn't apply when you stop using the product.

Git is an SCM

August 10, 2005 - 10:00am
Petr Baudis (not verified)

Git is an SCM. It is actually more general in design, but in its current distribution and given how users use it, it is clearly a version control system. I agree that it isn't too easy on the users and that's why I made Cogito and continue to maintain it. But the toolset accumulated on GIT over the time as well as everything but the very core index/database routines is clearly focused on version control. Noone relevant asked me to change this formulation so far anyway, so I doubt it would create any legal problem for Linus.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.