[teamhappy]

I guess you'd want to be able to include it in your distribution. FreeBSD for example includes svn (or svnlite or whatever) so you can fetch/update the source and do a buildkernel or buildworld without having to install any ports.

[gribbly]

But you can include Git in the distribution, it's a self-contained program, it's license won't affect anything else it ships alongside with.

[teamhappy]

    > The FreeBSD Project aims to produce a complete, 
    > BSD-licensed operating system allowing consumers of the
    > system to produce derivative products without constraint
    > or further license obligations.

https://www.freebsd.org/internal/software-license.html

Also https://www.openbsd.org/goals.html and https://www.netbsd.org/about/redistribution.html#why-berkele...

[gribbly]

Ok, so it's license philosophy rather than any actual license legality problematics, I can understand that.

[michaelmrose]

If someone wanted to produce a FreeBSD derivative would they really need to be able to ship a modified version of git?

[loeg]

Suffice to say, FreeBSD's current stance on licensing is that new GPL2 software in base is unacceptable, and the goal is to get to no GPL2 software in base.

[xyzzy_plugh]

Probably not, but then it wouldn't be "Free".

[jlg23]

It does affect the users' abilities to hack on the software. Since BSDs are used a lot in commercial environments this is a real concern for BSD-hackers.