From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Nieder Subject: Re: A few contributor's questions Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:48:42 -0800 Message-ID: <20140131184842.GA30398@google.com> References: <8738k44808.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20140131161924.GA4332@google.com> <87mwic2ijo.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: David Kastrup X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jan 31 19:48:57 2014 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 1W9J95-0000m6-Lk for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 19:48:56 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932515AbaAaSsv (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:48:51 -0500 Received: from mail-pd0-f181.google.com ([209.85.192.181]:60279 "EHLO mail-pd0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932236AbaAaSsu (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:48:50 -0500 Received: by mail-pd0-f181.google.com with SMTP id y10so4583921pdj.40 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:48:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=p9wZC4mZP15g703oER2XoCz6+dg3vWnf5FVDov7yw7s=; b=i3VtthILd4Za1Fm9GiWzBTNtOISE2AIsWYt3DKwtx3qeGN61fp8F53aG0BAhl8C/BS PTcPldFdMeixmc8QOGhwA6niaeqOas2Kg2QdHPyGmYCa/RcAwFLcfzaPTJHYdaUvpDGX /djAEBp0V2sW0HPDjtCBgKhiku7yKrSSpY9TE+aKgkQyK6Kvh+4vSzco6LaEJW7S6R3j w5q/iqgXT0Gkhk+qOhO7kmuWGISEUpPWfNLPPDa/pIYj89f79aO90B9kIC/MBYx93ZQu xF8qHvv8fFbe4/1b4x2//aXOEn/95O0VC01EAmpjOPEErC/2r4nuniY7MLvPs8RP3Cw+ j73Q== X-Received: by 10.68.134.130 with SMTP id pk2mr10215578pbb.167.1391194129826; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:48:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com ([2620:0:1000:5b00:b6b5:2fff:fec3:b50d]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id tu3sm73432057pab.1.2014.01.31.10.48.48 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:48:49 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87mwic2ijo.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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