From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Parkins Subject: Re: [git-multimail] License unknown (#1) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:28:07 +0000 Message-ID: <201302121528.07961.andyparkins@gmail.com> References: <5105778A.1040401@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git discussion list , "mhagger/git-multimail" , Michiel Holtkamp To: Michael Haggerty X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 12 16:28:42 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U5Hmf-0003YO-4Y for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:28:37 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933031Ab3BLP2N (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:28:13 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169]:58821 "EHLO mail-wi0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758571Ab3BLP2M (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:28:12 -0500 Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id l13so4714312wie.0 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:28:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references :in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :message-id; bh=PeS7hKL6H/8iHgkrC/CbHd2qNXw9SYJEePe8XZGmsmU=; b=l+HawX8aVQomdH57oPMgKjhYGQdmgwxA12/4z3mwGUcPuKCWMgAK7AW48987zmJlmg w2V6JVb6Yx5lPgvR6Lw5rNz4nkHlzNrFJrEBBvrHlEQ2ssQqFcz+WckDqZdwYX3blS/N K5jbJ2hnbMwiHCw4oGE/Dyge0UP2Q2HTmd7ZnWBJ3QHJ7r5BAphDdcM6Rnot7m8uiD0K dZV42TPn/JMw1DveBiK1rovgDvLh8uAGkkpZK4IPINuKlV6YIoB8ZMp/5vdxsHgaudFM +j6sn03/wAgeXvBNUb4qDOCSjxWufTh2JPKgRrCk2F/swTnflAAUG1VPM4e58V4B2ZFI IxEA== X-Received: by 10.180.93.234 with SMTP id cx10mr4029916wib.34.1360682890729; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:28:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from momentum.localnet ([91.84.15.31]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e12sm40343568wiw.5.2013.02.12.07.28.09 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:28:09 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.0-3-686-pae; KDE/4.8.4; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <5105778A.1040401@alum.mit.edu> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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