Re: [ANNOUNCE] Java Git (aka jgit) has switched to 3-clause BSD

["Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Johannes Schindelin
<Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 May 2008, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
>> > As of 53a2cc3 the jgit library (a 100% pure Java implementation
>> > of git) is now licensed under a 3-clause (new-style) BSD license.
>> > The change was done with a Perl script to rewrite all source code
>> > headers within the org.spearce.jgit package.  Copyright information
>> > was updated based upon the output of git-blame.
>>
>> I previously read about this transition from GPL to BSD.
>>
>> IANAL, but isn't the current version a derivative of the older
>> version, meaning that you need to take all authors into account when
>> doing this switch, and not just the authors of the _current_ code?
>>
>> (Or did you get a consent from all previous authors as well as current
>> authors?)
>
> He did.  That is what is written in the thread that Shawn explicitely
> stated in the part that you did _not_ quote.

Hm, yes, that is the thread I read before. What Shawn writes there is this:

"As of the bleeding edge (40c5c6cb11b8cc6caf3ea6a681caf0a6b8d66f36
[*4*]) the ownership of all currently surviving lines of code is
broken down as follows:"

This seems to suggest that only authors of the "bleeding edge" are
considered, while my point was that the "bleeding edge" may be a
derivative of earlier versions which had other authors as well.

I can't find anywhere explicitly mentioned in the thread that _all_
authors have been asked about the change of license.

> I also have to wonder why you chose a total technical non-issue, that does
> not really concern you (because you are noone of said authors), for your
> first post (at least that I am aware of) to this list.

It does concern me, because I enjoy git and free software in general.
I am not trolling or trying to stop the change of license in any way,
but simply give a heads up to what I believe might potentially be a
legal issue. Maybe there are in fact no other authors that have
participated, but in that case I think it is a fact worthy of explicit
mention.

This was also not my first post to this list; you have even replied to
one of my posts yourself once upon a time :-)


Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036