Re: [git-multimail] License unknown (#1)

[Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>]

On Sunday 27 January 2013 18:52:58 Michael Haggerty wrote:
> I have a question about the license of contrib/hooks/post-commit-email.
>  I had assumed that since it is in the git project, which is GPLv2, and
> since it contains no contrary information, it would by implication also
> fall under GPLv2.  But the file itself contains no explicit license
> information, and it is not clear to me that the "signed-off-by" line
> implies a particular license, either.  (The signed-off-by *does* seem to
> imply that the source code is under some kind of open source license,
> but not which one.)

Keeping up with the git mailing list got a bit much, but my original filters 
to sort messages from it into a (now hidden) folder where still in place.  
Michael contacted me independently, which was enough of a prod to see this.

My apologies to everyone; I've been lax supporting the script -- I never 
really expected it to be as widely used as it has been, I was always expecting 
someone would come along and replace it so I'm pleased that Michael has done 
so (although it's a little disheartening to read of it being called "hacky", 
when I tried very hard to make it as clear and modular as I could).

> If somebody can explain what license the code is under and how they come
> to that conclusion, I would be very grateful.
> 
> And if Andy Parkins (the original author) is listening, please indicate
> whether you had any intent *other* than GPLv2.

I intended it to be under the same license as Git.  I had read in one of the 
patch submission files (which I can't seem to find now) that all submissions 
were considered part of git.

> For anybody who is interested, the file was first committed in
> 4557e0de5b and has been modified by several authors since then.

I haven't looked at it for a long time.  I can't speak for the other authors, 
but for any part of it that is still mine -- anyone is free to do anything 
they wish with it.

> Given the pretty clear open-sourciness of the script, I don't think this
> has to be made into a big issue.  But it would be nice to state the
> license explicitly for future users' information.

If an explicit declaration is needed, I am happy to give it.  Let me know what 
form this should take and I'll supply it.



Andy

-- 
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins@gmail.com