Using test-lib.sh under GPLv3?

Using test-lib.sh under GPLv3?

[Michal Sojka]

Dear Junio,

I like the simple and powerful test suite used by Git and I would like
to use something like that in Notmuch project (http://notmuchmail.org/).
Notmuch is licenced under GPLv3 and we think that things will be simpler
if everything in the repository is licenced the same. You are mentioned
as a copyright holder in test-lib.sh and t0000-basic.sh so I'd like to
ask you: Would you mind using parts of these files under GPLv3?

You can see the patches for how I'd like to use these files at
http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/2010/thread.html#1431

Thanks,

Re: Using test-lib.sh under GPLv3?

[Jakub Narebski]

Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> writes:

> I like the simple and powerful test suite used by Git and I would like
> to use something like that in Notmuch project (http://notmuchmail.org/).
> Notmuch is licenced under GPLv3 and we think that things will be simpler
> if everything in the repository is licenced the same. You are mentioned
> as a copyright holder in test-lib.sh and t0000-basic.sh so I'd like to
> ask you: Would you mind using parts of these files under GPLv3?

Have you thought about using TAP (Test Anything Protocol) format for
your testsuite?  Its page (http://testanything.org) has a TAP-producing
bash library: http://testanything.org/wiki/index.php/Tap-functions

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

Re: Using test-lib.sh under GPLv3?

[Michal Sojka]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 02:27:37 -0800 (PST), Jakub Narebski <jnareb-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Michal Sojka <sojkam1-jQs2MHkdoM/twjQa/ONI9g@public.gmane.org> writes:
> 
> > I like the simple and powerful test suite used by Git and I would like
> > to use something like that in Notmuch project (http://notmuchmail.org/).
> > [...]
>
> Have you thought about using TAP (Test Anything Protocol) format for
> your testsuite?  Its page (http://testanything.org) has a TAP-producing
> bash library: http://testanything.org/wiki/index.php/Tap-functions

Yes, somebody has mentiond TAP on notmuch list. From a quick look at TAP
shell library it seems to me a bit more complex then git's library and
it also requires bash.

If we need to use some TAP-based tools, we could easily change the
output of git's library to conform to TAP. Right?

Michal

Re: Using test-lib.sh under GPLv3?

[Avery Pennarun]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 02:27:37 -0800 (PST), Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> writes:
>>
>> > I like the simple and powerful test suite used by Git and I would like
>> > to use something like that in Notmuch project (http://notmuchmail.org/).
>> > [...]
>>
>> Have you thought about using TAP (Test Anything Protocol) format for
>> your testsuite?  Its page (http://testanything.org) has a TAP-producing
>> bash library: http://testanything.org/wiki/index.php/Tap-functions
>
> Yes, somebody has mentiond TAP on notmuch list. From a quick look at TAP
> shell library it seems to me a bit more complex then git's library and
> it also requires bash.
>
> If we need to use some TAP-based tools, we could easily change the
> output of git's library to conform to TAP. Right?

Another TAP-like option is wvtest:

   http://github.com/apenwarr/wvtest

It's LGPLv2.

Have fun,

Avery

Re: Using test-lib.sh under GPLv3?

[Jakub Narebski]

Dnia wtorek 16. lutego 2010 14:06, Michal Sojka napisał:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 02:27:37 -0800 (PST), Jakub Narebski <jnareb-Re5JQEeQqe8@public.gmane.orgm> wrote:
> > Michal Sojka <sojkam1-jQs2MHkdoM/twjQa/ONI9g@public.gmane.org> writes:
> > 
> > > I like the simple and powerful test suite used by Git and I would like
> > > to use something like that in Notmuch project (http://notmuchmail.org/).
> > > [...]
> >
> > Have you thought about using TAP (Test Anything Protocol) format for
> > your testsuite?  Its page (http://testanything.org) has a TAP-producing
> > bash library: http://testanything.org/wiki/index.php/Tap-functions
> 
> Yes, somebody has mentiond TAP on notmuch list. From a quick look at TAP
> shell library it seems to me a bit more complex then git's library and
> it also requires bash.
> 
> If we need to use some TAP-based tools, we could easily change the
> output of git's library to conform to TAP. Right?

Or better yet improve git test suite, so when passed --tap parameter
it would produce TAP output, instead of its own report format.  And
send patches here.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland

Re: Using test-lib.sh under GPLv3?

[Junio C Hamano]

Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> writes:

> ... You are mentioned
> as a copyright holder in test-lib.sh and t0000-basic.sh so I'd like to
> ask you: Would you mind using parts of these files under GPLv3?

I don't mind for the parts I wrote, which is the basic infrastructure
(output redirection, skipping certain tests, expecting failure, etc).
My blessing would be enough to relicense it if you are are going to take
the file from some old version like 04ece59 (GIT_SKIP_TESTS: allow users
to omit tests that are known to break, 2006-12-28) and base your work on
it, but otherwise it would not be nearly sufficient.

Other people worked on polishing it over time and they all hold copyright
on their parts.  Notable parts that are not mine and that are not git
specific are:

 - color output support is mostly by Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>
 - valgrind support: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
 - conditional test: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
 - summarizing the results: Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com>

Re: Using test-lib.sh under GPLv3?

[Michal Sojka]

Dear Pierre, Johannes (2x) and Sverre,

as you can read bellow, I'd like to use git's test-lib.sh in a GPLv3
project. Do you mind if I use your work in that file under GPLv3?

Thanks
Michal

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:39:28 +0100, Michal Sojka <sojkam1-jQs2MHkdoM/twjQa/ONI9g@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Dear Junio,
> 
> I like the simple and powerful test suite used by Git and I would like
> to use something like that in Notmuch project (http://notmuchmail.org/).
> Notmuch is licenced under GPLv3 and we think that things will be simpler
> if everything in the repository is licenced the same. You are mentioned
> as a copyright holder in test-lib.sh and t0000-basic.sh so I'd like to
> ask you: Would you mind using parts of these files under GPLv3?
> 
> You can see the patches for how I'd like to use these files at
> http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/2010/thread.html#1431

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:54:19 -0800, Junio C Hamano <gitster-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> I don't mind for the parts I wrote, which is the basic infrastructure
> (output redirection, skipping certain tests, expecting failure, etc).
> My blessing would be enough to relicense it if you are are going to take
> the file from some old version like 04ece59 (GIT_SKIP_TESTS: allow users
> to omit tests that are known to break, 2006-12-28) and base your work on
> it, but otherwise it would not be nearly sufficient.
> 
> Other people worked on polishing it over time and they all hold copyright
> on their parts.  Notable parts that are not mine and that are not git
> specific are:
> 
>  - color output support is mostly by Pierre Habouzit <madcoder-8fiUuRrzOP0dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>  - valgrind support: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org>
>  - conditional test: Johannes Sixt <j6t-FFprn4rPSa4@public.gmane.org>
>  - summarizing the results: Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>

Re: Using test-lib.sh under GPLv3?

[Sverre Rabbelier]

Heya,

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 09:19, Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
> as you can read bellow, I'd like to use git's test-lib.sh in a GPLv3
> project. Do you mind if I use your work in that file under GPLv3?

I don't mind, go right ahead :).

-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier

Re: Using test-lib.sh under GPLv3?

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Michal Sojka wrote:

> as you can read bellow, I'd like to use git's test-lib.sh in a GPLv3 
> project. Do you mind if I use your work in that file under GPLv3?

I do not mind, but I would like to ask that you contribute the 
improvements back under GPLv2.

Thanks,
Johannes

Re: Using test-lib.sh under GPLv3?

[Pierre Habouzit]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:39:04AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Michal Sojka wrote:
> 
> > as you can read bellow, I'd like to use git's test-lib.sh in a GPLv3 
> > project. Do you mind if I use your work in that file under GPLv3?
> 
> I do not mind, but I would like to ask that you contribute the 
> improvements back under GPLv2.

Same for me.

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Re: Using test-lib.sh under GPLv3?

[Carl Worth]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1000 bytes --]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:39:04 +0100 (CET), Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Michal Sojka wrote:
> 
> > as you can read bellow, I'd like to use git's test-lib.sh in a GPLv3 
> > project. Do you mind if I use your work in that file under GPLv3?
> 
> I do not mind, but I would like to ask that you contribute the 
> improvements back under GPLv2.

Thanks everyone for your agreement.

And yes, we'll contribute back any improvements under GPLv2.

I think the most clear step forward would be for test-lib.sh to be
updated in the git repository with an explicit licensing blurb
reflecting this agreement. The most convenient would be something using
the standard language of "either version 2 of the License, or (at your
option) any later version".

Then, any generic improvements we make within notmuch, (such as a --tap
option or whatever), I'll be sure to pass on to the git community.

Thanks again,

-Carl

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Using test-lib.sh under GPLv3?

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Carl Worth wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:39:04 +0100 (CET), Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Michal Sojka wrote:
> > 
> > > as you can read bellow, I'd like to use git's test-lib.sh in a GPLv3 
> > > project. Do you mind if I use your work in that file under GPLv3?
> > 
> > I do not mind, but I would like to ask that you contribute the 
> > improvements back under GPLv2.
> 
> Thanks everyone for your agreement.
> 
> And yes, we'll contribute back any improvements under GPLv2.
> 
> I think the most clear step forward would be for test-lib.sh to be
> updated in the git repository with an explicit licensing blurb
> reflecting this agreement.

Sure. If you make an appropriate patch, I'll ACK it.

Ciao,
Dscho

[PATCH] test-lib.sh: Add explicit license detail, with change from GPLv2 to GPLv2+.

[Carl Worth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2194 bytes --]

This file has had no explicit license information noted in it, but
has clearly been created and modified according to the terms of GPLv2
as with the rest of the git code base.

The purpose of relicensing is to allow other GPLv3+ projects (in
particular, the notmuch project: http://notmuchmail.org) to use this
same test-suite structure (and to contribute changes back as well).

The request for relicensing was presented to the git community in:

	Message-ID: <871vgmki4f.fsf@steelpick.localdomain>

and explicitly agreed to by Junio C Hamano, Sverre Rabbelier, Johannes
Schindelin, Pierre Habouzit, and Johannes Sixt.
---

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:04:37 +0100 (CET), Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
>
> > I think the most clear step forward would be for test-lib.sh to be
> > updated in the git repository with an explicit licensing blurb
> > reflecting this agreement.
> 
> Sure. If you make an appropriate patch, I'll ACK it.

Thanks Johannes,

Hopefully this does the trick. Otherwise, please let me know.

-Carl

 t/test-lib.sh |   12 ++++++++++++
 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh
index afd3053..004470f 100644
--- a/t/test-lib.sh
+++ b/t/test-lib.sh
@@ -2,6 +2,18 @@
 #
 # Copyright (c) 2005 Junio C Hamano
 #
+# This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
+# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+# the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or
+# (at your option) any later version.
+#
+# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+# GNU General Public License for more details.
+#
+# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+# along with this program.  If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ .
 
 # if --tee was passed, write the output not only to the terminal, but
 # additionally to the file test-results/$BASENAME.out, too.
-- 
1.6.5.7


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] test-lib.sh: Add explicit license detail, with change from GPLv2 to GPLv2+.

[Junio C Hamano]

Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> writes:

> This file has had no explicit license information noted in it, but
> has clearly been created and modified according to the terms of GPLv2
> as with the rest of the git code base.
>
> The purpose of relicensing is to allow other GPLv3+ projects (in
> particular, the notmuch project: http://notmuchmail.org) to use this
> same test-suite structure (and to contribute changes back as well).

Please drop the parentheses around the last phrase (but not the last
phrase itself).

> The request for relicensing was presented to the git community in:
>
> 	Message-ID: <871vgmki4f.fsf@steelpick.localdomain>


Message-ID alone is not a good way to help people locate the request.
Please at least mention what mailing list the message was sent to; better
yet, do so like this:

  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.notmuch.general/1389/focus=140156

so that people can see the consent from the primary author (that is where
the focus is), the original request (that can be seen by looking at its
immediate parent), and messages with consent from other contributors, all
in one place.

> and explicitly agreed to by Junio C Hamano, Sverre Rabbelier, Johannes
> Schindelin, Pierre Habouzit, and Johannes Sixt.
> ---

And a sign-off ;-).

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] test-lib.sh: Add explicit license detail, with change from GPLv2 to GPLv2+.

[Carl Worth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3379 bytes --]

From 8693995fde71e8b028318e1e83bdbb6ae759335a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:41:24 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] test-lib.sh: Add explicit license detail, with change from GPLv2 to GPLv2+.

This file has had no explicit license information noted in it, but
has clearly been created and modified according to the terms of GPLv2
as with the rest of the git code base.

The purpose of relicensing is to allow other GPLv3+ projects (in
particular, the notmuch project: http://notmuchmail.org) to use this
same test-suite structure and to contribute changes back as well.

The relicensing was agreed to by Junio C Hamano here:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.notmuch.general/1389/focus=140156

and in follow-up messages by Sverre Rabbelier, Johannes Schindelin,
Pierre Habouzit, and Johannes Sixt.

Signed-off-by: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
---

> Message-ID alone is not a good way to help people locate the request.
> Please at least mention what mailing list the message was sent to; better
> yet, do so like this:

Done as requested.

But while we're on the subject, let me at least make a case for
communication by way of Message-ID. The URL above is good for as long as
gmane continues to live, but that may not be as long as the git project
(and its mailing-list archives) are interesting.

Meanwhile, a message ID lives forever and can be used in multiple
contexts. For example, gmane does already support message-ID-based URLs:

http://mid.gmane.org/7vaav3bnr5.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org

That interface happens to only display the single message, (requiring
clicking on the subject to see the thread), but one can imagine gmane
getting a similar interface to display the thread directly from the
message ID.

Meanwhile, people using systems like notmuch can also use the message ID
directly to view the thread, with something like:

    notmuch show id:7vaav3bnr5.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org

So I'm very much in favor of using message IDs more regularly, (and just
expecting that users and their tools will be more accepting of them).

But for now, you've hopefully got your commit message the way you want
it. :-)

 t/test-lib.sh |   12 ++++++++++++
 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh
index afd3053..004470f 100644
--- a/t/test-lib.sh
+++ b/t/test-lib.sh
@@ -2,6 +2,18 @@
 #
 # Copyright (c) 2005 Junio C Hamano
 #
+# This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
+# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+# the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or
+# (at your option) any later version.
+#
+# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+# GNU General Public License for more details.
+#
+# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+# along with this program.  If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ .
 
 # if --tee was passed, write the output not only to the terminal, but
 # additionally to the file test-results/$BASENAME.out, too.
-- 
1.6.5.7


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] test-lib.sh: Add explicit license detail, with change from GPLv2 to GPLv2+.

[Junio C Hamano]

Carl Worth <cworth-4HiWtcSh4w0dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> writes:

> From 8693995fde71e8b028318e1e83bdbb6ae759335a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Carl Worth <cworth-4HiWtcSh4w0dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:41:24 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH] test-lib.sh: Add explicit license detail, with change from GPLv2 to GPLv2+.

Please drop the above the next time.

> The relicensing was agreed to by Junio C Hamano here:
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.notmuch.general/1389/focus=140156
>
> and in follow-up messages by Sverre Rabbelier, Johannes Schindelin,
> Pierre Habouzit, and Johannes Sixt.

FWIW, I only said "_at least_ you need consent from them", and it was not
meant to be an exhaustive list.  "blame -C -C -C" may tell you more.

You are the party that wants this relicensing, not me.  Please do not
burden me with excessive legwork for you, but help me a bit more
proactively to make this happen.

> Meanwhile, a message ID lives forever and can be used in multiple
> contexts.

Oh, I never said "do not use message ID".  I said "message ID alone is not
good enough for most people".  Users of gmane and notmuch who know the
tool they use would benefit from having message ID, _too_, but even if you
were a user of notmuch, unless you have subscribed to the list and have
your own archive, you wouldn't be able to say "show id:frotz".

Re: [PATCH] test-lib.sh: Add explicit license detail, with change from GPLv2 to GPLv2+.

[Tay Ray Chuan]

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> FWIW, I only said "_at least_ you need consent from them", and it was not
> meant to be an exhaustive list.  "blame -C -C -C" may tell you more.

Without substantial analysis, "blame" alone is not sufficient - it
does not show which work was original, or derivative.

-- 
Cheers,
Ray Chuan

Re: [PATCH] test-lib.sh: Add explicit license detail, with change from GPLv2 to GPLv2+.

[Johannes Schindelin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 830 bytes --]

Hi,

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Tay Ray Chuan wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 
> wrote:
> > FWIW, I only said "_at least_ you need consent from them", and it was 
> > not meant to be an exhaustive list.  "blame -C -C -C" may tell you 
> > more.
> 
> Without substantial analysis, "blame" alone is not sufficient - it does 
> not show which work was original, or derivative.

Well, I think that blame can get you very, very far. For example, you will 
see that Josh Triplett's only (surviving) contribution to test-lib.sh is a 
single line saying "unset MAIL", which is too trivial to be copyrightable 
(and if it was not trivial, it still would be the only way to accomplish 
what it does, so it is again not copyrightable).

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [PATCH] test-lib.sh: Add explicit license detail, with change from GPLv2 to GPLv2+.

[Matthieu Moy]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.notmuch.general/1389/focus=140156
[...]
>> Meanwhile, a message ID lives forever and can be used in multiple
>> contexts.
>
> Oh, I never said "do not use message ID".  I said "message ID alone is not
> good enough for most people". 

FWIW, gmane allows links of the form

http://mid.gmane.org/7vaav8hpfo.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org

which have the advantage of being simple to use, and still contain the
necessary information to get the message in case gmane dies.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

Re: [PATCH] test-lib.sh: Add explicit license detail, with change from GPLv2 to GPLv2+.

[Carl Worth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1362 bytes --]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:42:30 -0800, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Please drop the above the next time.

Oops. Yes, I missed that.

> FWIW, I only said "_at least_ you need consent from them", and it was not
> meant to be an exhaustive list.  "blame -C -C -C" may tell you more.

Fair enough.

> You are the party that wants this relicensing, not me.  Please do not
> burden me with excessive legwork for you, but help me a bit more
> proactively to make this happen.

I hope you see I haven't asked you to do any additional legwork. A
suggestion was made to construct a patch, which I did. You always have
the option of accepting or rejecting the patch as you see fit.

> Oh, I never said "do not use message ID".  I said "message ID alone is not
> good enough for most people".  Users of gmane and notmuch who know the
> tool they use would benefit from having message ID, _too_, but even if you
> were a user of notmuch, unless you have subscribed to the list and have
> your own archive, you wouldn't be able to say "show id:frotz".

Certainly. My assumption was that in a commit message for git, readers
would naturally assume that a message ID with no additional
specification could be found in the archives of the standard git mailing
list, (which is the case here). Otherwise, I would have qualified the
message ID more specifically.

-Carl

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] test-lib.sh: Add explicit license detail, with change from GPLv2 to GPLv2+.

[Tay Ray Chuan]

Hi,

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> The request for relicensing was presented to the git community in:
>
>        Message-ID: <871vgmki4f.fsf@steelpick.localdomain>
>
> and explicitly agreed to by Junio C Hamano, Sverre Rabbelier, Johannes
> Schindelin, Pierre Habouzit, and Johannes Sixt.

(of all projects, Mercurial!) take a look at Mercurial's attempt at
relicensing last year (http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Relicensing):
they contacted all 300+ contributors as part of the process.

Of course, we aren't talking about relicensing the whole codebase.
However, I don't think any of the contributors agreed to assign their
work to the 5 people mentioned above (eg. under a contributor licence
agreement), so just getting the approval of them is not enough; you
need to get the approval of *all* contributors to test-lib.sh.

Here's what I get with 'git shortlog t/test-lib.sh  | grep "^[A-Z]"'

   Alex Riesen (5):
   Brandon Casey (2):
   Bryan Donlan (3):
   Carl Worth (1):
   Christian Couder (1):
   Clemens Buchacher (3):
   David Reiss (1):
   Emil Sit (1):
   Eric Wong (3):
   Fredrik Kuivinen (1):
   Gerrit Pape (1):
   Jakub Narebski (1):
   Jeff King (7):
   Johan Herland (1):
   Johannes Schindelin (14):
   Johannes Sixt (12):
   Jonathan Nieder (1):
   Josh Triplett (1):
   Junio C Hamano (57):
   Lea Wiemann (5):
   Markus Heidelberg (1):
   Martin Waitz (1):
   Matthew Ogilvie (1):
   Matthias Lederhofer (1):
   Michael J Gruber (4):
   Michele Ballabio (2):
   Miklos Vajna (1):
   Nicolas Pitre (1):
   Pavel Roskin (3):
   Petr Baudis (3):
   Pierre Habouzit (2):
   Robin Rosenberg (1):
   Shawn O. Pearce (4):
   Stephan Beyer (1):
   Stephen Boyd (1):
   Sverre Rabbelier (2):

PS: This message should not be construed as legal advice.

-- 
Cheers,
Ray Chuan

Re: [PATCH] test-lib.sh: Add explicit license detail, with change from GPLv2 to GPLv2+.

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010, Carl Worth wrote:

> This file has had no explicit license information noted in it, but
> has clearly been created and modified according to the terms of GPLv2
> as with the rest of the git code base.
> 
> The purpose of relicensing is to allow other GPLv3+ projects (in
> particular, the notmuch project: http://notmuchmail.org) to use this
> same test-suite structure (and to contribute changes back as well).
> 
> The request for relicensing was presented to the git community in:
> 
> 	Message-ID: <871vgmki4f.fsf@steelpick.localdomain>
> 
> and explicitly agreed to by Junio C Hamano, Sverre Rabbelier, Johannes
> Schindelin, Pierre Habouzit, and Johannes Sixt.

As promised:

Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>

Ciao,
Dscho

Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Michal Sojka]

To all contributors to test-lib.sh mentioned in Bcc:

You're getting this message because you're recorded as contributing one
or more changes to the test-lib.sh file in the Git project, and are
therefore one of many copyright holders in the file.

We would like to extend the license of that file from GPLv2 only
license to GPLv2+ by adding the recommended "or any later version"
clause to the license. This will give us license compatibility with
GPLv3 projects, which would like to reuse test-lib.sh.

Please respond to this email with one of the following:

 YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
 with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.

 NO, I would rather not, please send me more email to convince me.

I'm putting your address to Bcc as most people are probably not
interested in receiving responses from dozens of other people. I will
track the status of received responses at
https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Test-lib_reclicensing. Please do
not remove git@vger.kernel.org when responding so that your response is
available to everyone.

Thanks!
Michal Sojka

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Jonathan Nieder]

Hi Michal,

I am happy for anyone to use, modify, distribute, and relicense my
meagre contribution to t/test-lib.sh in any way they please.

In particular: yes, I agree to relicense all my contributions to
test-lib.sh to GPLv2+ with the addition of the "or any later version"
clause.

Thanks,
Jonathan

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Petr Baudis]

On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:29:11AM +0200, Michal Sojka wrote:
> We would like to extend the license of that file from GPLv2 only
> license to GPLv2+ by adding the recommended "or any later version"
> clause to the license. This will give us license compatibility with
> GPLv3 projects, which would like to reuse test-lib.sh.

  Huh, didn't we just run through this about a month ago? Is this some
kind of stale e-mail message?

				Petr "Pasky" Baudis

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Michal Sojka]

On Fri, 02 Apr 2010, Petr Baudis wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:29:11AM +0200, Michal Sojka wrote:
> > We would like to extend the license of that file from GPLv2 only
> > license to GPLv2+ by adding the recommended "or any later version"
> > clause to the license. This will give us license compatibility with
> > GPLv3 projects, which would like to reuse test-lib.sh.
> 
>   Huh, didn't we just run through this about a month ago? Is this some
> kind of stale e-mail message?

The month ago, I didn't contact *ALL* contributors, but only the ones
with significat contribution. Now I want to finish relicensing by
contacting all contributors as sugested in some responses.

-Michal

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Petr Baudis]

On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:51:41AM +0200, Michal Sojka wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010, Petr Baudis wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:29:11AM +0200, Michal Sojka wrote:
> > > We would like to extend the license of that file from GPLv2 only
> > > license to GPLv2+ by adding the recommended "or any later version"
> > > clause to the license. This will give us license compatibility with
> > > GPLv3 projects, which would like to reuse test-lib.sh.
> > 
> >   Huh, didn't we just run through this about a month ago? Is this some
> > kind of stale e-mail message?
> 
> The month ago, I didn't contact *ALL* contributors, but only the ones
> with significat contribution. Now I want to finish relicensing by
> contacting all contributors as sugested in some responses.

Then perhaps you should exclude those who already replied earlier?
It seems to me the list on the wiki is quite similar in magnitude to
the recipient list of the last mail, surely there's no need to bother
everyone again just for few extra people?

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
http://pasky.or.cz/ | "Ars longa, vita brevis." -- Hippocrates

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Michal Sojka]

On Fri, 02 Apr 2010, Petr Baudis wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:51:41AM +0200, Michal Sojka wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Apr 2010, Petr Baudis wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:29:11AM +0200, Michal Sojka wrote:
> > > > We would like to extend the license of that file from GPLv2 only
> > > > license to GPLv2+ by adding the recommended "or any later version"
> > > > clause to the license. This will give us license compatibility with
> > > > GPLv3 projects, which would like to reuse test-lib.sh.
> > > 
> > >   Huh, didn't we just run through this about a month ago? Is this some
> > > kind of stale e-mail message?
> > 
> > The month ago, I didn't contact *ALL* contributors, but only the ones
> > with significat contribution. Now I want to finish relicensing by
> > contacting all contributors as sugested in some responses.
> 
> Then perhaps you should exclude those who already replied earlier?
> It seems to me the list on the wiki is quite similar in magnitude to
> the recipient list of the last mail, surely there's no need to bother
> everyone again just for few extra people?

That's exactly what I did. I excluded those who stated explicitely that
they agree. Shall I take your response as an agreement?

Michal

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Jeff King]

On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 10:27:39AM +0200, Michal Sojka wrote:

> > Then perhaps you should exclude those who already replied earlier?
> > It seems to me the list on the wiki is quite similar in magnitude to
> > the recipient list of the last mail, surely there's no need to bother
> > everyone again just for few extra people?
> 
> That's exactly what I did. I excluded those who stated explicitely that
> they agree. Shall I take your response as an agreement?

I'm not sure how you did it, but I already assented in the earlier
thread (and am listed on the wiki) and still got the mail. But anyway,
to be very clear:

   YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to
   GPLv2+ with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.

-Peff

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Clemens Buchacher]

On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:43:43AM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:

>   Huh, didn't we just run through this about a month ago? Is this some
> kind of stale e-mail message?

Yes. I'm afraid that E-Mail never made it to the list or to Michael, because
neither were Cc'ed. Including myself, I got positive replies from the
following contributors.

 Johan Herland
 Brandon Casey
 Petr Baudis
 Miklos Vajna
 Shawn O. Pearce

It's probably best if you guys reply here again, for the record.

Clemens

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Johan Herland]

> On Fri, Apr 02, 2010, Petr Baudis wrote:
>
> >    Huh, didn't we just run through this about a month ago? Is this some
> > kind of stale e-mail message?
>
> Yes. I'm afraid that E-Mail never made it to the list or to Michael, because
> neither were Cc'ed. Including myself, I got positive replies from the
> following contributors.
>
>  Johan Herland

For the record, I'm still ok with the license change.


...Johan


>  Brandon Casey
>  Petr Baudis
>  Miklos Vajna
>  Shawn O. Pearce
>
> It's probably best if you guys reply here again, for the record.
>
> Clemens

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Matthias Lederhofer]

Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
> To all contributors to test-lib.sh mentioned in Bcc:
> 
> You're getting this message because you're recorded as contributing one
> or more changes to the test-lib.sh file in the Git project, and are
> therefore one of many copyright holders in the file.
> 
> We would like to extend the license of that file from GPLv2 only
> license to GPLv2+ by adding the recommended "or any later version"
> clause to the license. This will give us license compatibility with
> GPLv3 projects, which would like to reuse test-lib.sh.

YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Lea Wiemann]

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 03:29, Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
> We would like to extend the license of that file from GPLv2 only
> license to GPLv2+ by adding the recommended "or any later version"
> clause to the license. This will give us license compatibility with
> GPLv3 projects, which would like to reuse test-lib.sh.
>
>  YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
>  with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.

Yes.

-- Lea

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Michele Ballabio]

On Friday 02 April 2010, Michal Sojka wrote:
> To all contributors to test-lib.sh mentioned in Bcc:
> 
> You're getting this message because you're recorded as contributing one
> or more changes to the test-lib.sh file in the Git project, and are
> therefore one of many copyright holders in the file.
> 
> We would like to extend the license of that file from GPLv2 only
> license to GPLv2+ by adding the recommended "or any later version"
> clause to the license. This will give us license compatibility with
> GPLv3 projects, which would like to reuse test-lib.sh.

YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Clemens Buchacher]

YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.

Clemens

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Miklos Vajna]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 490 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:29:11AM +0200, Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
> Please respond to this email with one of the following:
> 
>  YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
>  with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.
> 
>  NO, I would rather not, please send me more email to convince me.

YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Alex Riesen]

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 09:29, Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
>  YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
>  with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.

I'm fine with the change.

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[David Reiss]

YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Christian Couder]

On Friday 02 April 2010 09:29:11 Michal Sojka wrote:
> To all contributors to test-lib.sh mentioned in Bcc:
> 
> You're getting this message because you're recorded as contributing one
> or more changes to the test-lib.sh file in the Git project, and are
> therefore one of many copyright holders in the file.
> 
> We would like to extend the license of that file from GPLv2 only
> license to GPLv2+ by adding the recommended "or any later version"
> clause to the license. This will give us license compatibility with
> GPLv3 projects, which would like to reuse test-lib.sh.
> 
> Please respond to this email with one of the following:
> 
>  YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
>  with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.
> 
>  NO, I would rather not, please send me more email to convince me.
> 
> I'm putting your address to Bcc as most people are probably not
> interested in receiving responses from dozens of other people. I will
> track the status of received responses at
> https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Test-lib_reclicensing. Please do
> not remove git@vger.kernel.org when responding so that your response is
> available to everyone.

YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.

Thanks,
Christian.

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Jakub Narebski]

On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Michal Sojka wrote:
> To all contributors to test-lib.sh mentioned in Bcc:
> 
> You're getting this message because you're recorded as contributing one
> or more changes to the test-lib.sh file in the Git project, and are
> therefore one of many copyright holders in the file.
> 
> We would like to extend the license of that file from GPLv2 only
> license to GPLv2+ by adding the recommended "or any later version"
> clause to the license. This will give us license compatibility with
> GPLv3 projects, which would like to reuse test-lib.sh.
> 
> Please respond to this email with one of the following:
> 
>  YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
>  with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.
> 
>  NO, I would rather not, please send me more email to convince me.

As I said earlier, I don't think my contribution is significant enough
(and large enough) to be copyrightable.  But again:

  YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
  with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.


-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Robin Rosenberg]

fredagen den 2 april 2010 09.29.11 skrev  Michal Sojka:
> To all contributors to test-lib.sh mentioned in Bcc:
> 
> You're getting this message because you're recorded as contributing one
> or more changes to the test-lib.sh file in the Git project, and are
> therefore one of many copyright holders in the file.
> 
> We would like to extend the license of that file from GPLv2 only
> license to GPLv2+ by adding the recommended "or any later version"
> clause to the license. This will give us license compatibility with
> GPLv3 projects, which would like to reuse test-lib.sh.

YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.

-- robin

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Michael J Gruber]

On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 09:29 +0200, "Michal Sojka" <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>
wrote:
> To all contributors to test-lib.sh mentioned in Bcc:
> 
> You're getting this message because you're recorded as contributing one
> or more changes to the test-lib.sh file in the Git project, and are
> therefore one of many copyright holders in the file.
> 
> We would like to extend the license of that file from GPLv2 only
> license to GPLv2+ by adding the recommended "or any later version"
> clause to the license. This will give us license compatibility with
> GPLv3 projects, which would like to reuse test-lib.sh.
> 
> Please respond to this email with one of the following:
> 
>  YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
>  with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.
> 
>  NO, I would rather not, please send me more email to convince me.
> 
> I'm putting your address to Bcc as most people are probably not
> interested in receiving responses from dozens of other people. I will
> track the status of received responses at
> https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Test-lib_reclicensing. Please do
> not remove git@vger.kernel.org when responding so that your response is
> available to everyone.

What else do I need to do besides my acked-by to Junio's patch in
<4B8E1EBA.4090406@drmicha.warpmail.net> on 3/3?

For whatever's sake:
>  YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
>  with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.

Michael

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Matthew Ogilvie]

On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:29:11AM +0200, Michal Sojka wrote:
> Please respond to this email with one of the following:
> 
>  YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
>  with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.
> 
>  NO, I would rather not, please send me more email to convince me.

Yes, the relicensing is fine with me.

             - Matthew Ogilvie

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Gerrit Pape]

On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:29:11AM +0200, Michal Sojka wrote:
> We would like to extend the license of that file from GPLv2 only
> license to GPLv2+ by adding the recommended "or any later version"
> clause to the license. This will give us license compatibility with
> GPLv3 projects, which would like to reuse test-lib.sh.

 YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
 with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Pavel Roskin]

>  YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
>  with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin

Re: Git: relicensing test-lib.sh from GPLv2 to GPLv2+

[Emil Sit]

YES, I agree to relicense all my contributions to test-lib.sh to GPLv2+
with the addition of the "or any later version" clause.
-- 
Emil Sit / http://www.emilsit.net/

Re: Using test-lib.sh under GPLv3?

[Johannes Sixt]

Michal Sojka schrieb:
> as you can read bellow, I'd like to use git's test-lib.sh in a GPLv3
> project. Do you mind if I use your work in that file under GPLv3?

I do not mind. Go ahead.

-- Hannes