From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
To: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: A few contributor's questions
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:48:42 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140131184842.GA30398@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mwic2ijo.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>
Hi,
David Kastrup wrote:
> Also whether or not this implies an assignment of copyright, it is a
> reasonable assumption for
[...]
Since I think we've completely gone off the rails:
I assume the problem you're trying to solve is that files don't have
clear enough notices of their licensing. That could be a real problem
for people using the code, since if you no one gave you a license then
you don't have a license at all. It's also a problem in that it makes
it harder to interpret the phrase "under the same open source license"
(though I have no idea how that could be read as "I give up my
copyright completely").
The way git currently works in that area is the same as the Linux
kernel:
* the code is copyright by the authors and we try not to waste fuss
on maintaining a comprehensive list in notices. If you want to
find the authors to negotiate special licensing, you get to do the
work.
* license is GPLv2-only where not otherwise specified
* relicensing, when needed, happens by contacting all the copyright
holders and getting their consent
I don't see anything weird about that. But people using the code
might like clearer notices, so I personally would not mind an extra
line in most files stating the license. (More than that and it
becomes absurd.) That's all just my opinion --- Junio might think
differently, etc.
[...]
> It's verbose and cumbersome enough that I would not have been surprised
> if there'd be an established way of getting this information on record,
> preferably per-project rather than per-commit.
For relicensing the existing practice is to just contact people. That
has the advantage that I can make a decision about whether to allow
relicensing code I've written in the context of how I expect it to be
used. I expect that if you had a stance on GPLv2+ licensing of
contributions to git published in some place easily found by search
engines (for example a message on the mailing list), interested people
would not have too much trouble finding it when the time comes.
Hope that helps,
Jonathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-31 18:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-31 13:04 A few contributor's questions David Kastrup
2014-01-31 16:19 ` Jonathan Nieder
2014-01-31 17:00 ` David Kastrup
2014-01-31 18:48 ` Jonathan Nieder [this message]
2014-01-31 21:06 ` David Kastrup
2014-01-31 23:58 ` David Lang
2014-02-03 16:35 ` Andreas Ericsson
2014-02-03 17:35 ` David Kastrup
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140131184842.GA30398@google.com \
--to=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=dak@gnu.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).