Post

9 June

I don't even think git being licensed more permissively (eg, MPL2 or something) would be a bad thing! It would be a net positive for humanity probably. Just, like. Using AI to rewrite and relicense one of the single most-used pieces of GPLed software is actually a declaration of licensing war.

9 June

And git probably has contributors with standing to sue who might have the ideological motive to do so. Also, like. How are you not a derived work? What made you come to that conclusion? Or do you just really WANT to not be?

Since people aren't connecting the dots on this I feel like I need to point out that the author of this post is GitButler's CEO and the same Scott Chacon whose name is proudly displayed as a co-author at git-scm.com/book. He was also a Github cofounder.

10/6/26, 12:29 am2 reposts32 likes

So this isn't just some random outsider coming in and doing this. This is someone who's been an active member of the developer community around git for a long time. I don't think that's going to make people happier about this situation.

Amyville Hoyrror

@amyhoy.bsky.social

that's weird. i knew scott but more importantly i knew the 3 guys who founded github and he wasn't one of them.

Huh. I thought he was a cofounder since he's listed as one on wikipedia. So either that's wrong or it's one of those late-stage cofounder deals?

Amyville Hoyrror

@amyhoy.bsky.social

tom.preston-werner.comTen Lessons from GitHub's First Year

i was 95% certain that was wrong (and the citation for it on wikipedia is gone) found this — he was one of the first employees. maybe they promoted him later. but to me that's not a cofounder.

I mean sure, but people get awarded the title of cofounder without actually being present at the company's founding and are then referred to as such. Regardless of whether it should be done (I'm not a fan), it does happen and might be the explanation. Or it's just wrong. That's very likely too.

Amyville Hoyrror

@amyhoy.bsky.social