GPL v2 authoritative answer on stored code as a derived work

GPL v2 authoritative answer on stored code as a derived work

[Jonathan Smith]

Hi all

It's pretty clear that code stored in a Git repository isn't considered a derived work of Git, regardless of whether it is used in a commercial context or otherwise.

However, I'm unable to find this stated in any authoritative and unambiguous manner.

For example, http://www.sitepoint.com/public-license-explained/ has a pretty nasty disclaimer at the end.

Would it be possible to make an unambiguous, authoritative statement on your website, or something like that, that would make commercial adoption more appealing?

Thank you!

Jonathan
____________________________________________________________

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information. If you
are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error)
please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any
unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this 
e-mail is strictly forbidden.

Re: GPL v2 authoritative answer on stored code as a derived work

[Junio C Hamano]

Jonathan Smith <Jonathan.Smith@fphcare.co.nz> writes:

> It's pretty clear that code stored in a Git repository isn't
> considered a derived work of Git, regardless of whether it is used
> in a commercial context or otherwise.
>
> However, I'm unable to find this stated in any authoritative and
> unambiguous manner.

Is it reasonable to ask for such a statement?  I doubt it,
especially if "It's pretty clear".

Without such a statement, I think we have already seen that the
commercial adoption is already appealing.

Re: GPL v2 authoritative answer on stored code as a derived work

[Philip Oakley]

From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
> Jonathan Smith <Jonathan.Smith@fphcare.co.nz> writes:
>
>> It's pretty clear that code stored in a Git repository isn't
>> considered a derived work of Git, regardless of whether it is used
>> in a commercial context or otherwise.

I'm guessing here, but I suspect that while its 'pretty clear' to Jonathan, 
that he has met others who aren't so clear or trusting, and it's that 
distrustful community that would need convincing.

>>
>> However, I'm unable to find this stated in any authoritative and
>> unambiguous manner.

The GPL2 FAQ's (search for 'data')
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#TOCGPLOutput 
(should link to "Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from 
use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware 
designs, can I require that these designs must be free?") and 
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL 
both cover the fact that the repo (data) is not a derived work, and thus not 
subject to GPL2.

>
> Is it reasonable to ask for such a statement?  I doubt it,
> especially if "It's pretty clear".

(Rhet) If there were to be such a statement, where should it be placed, and 
who could issue it? It couldn't be part of the COPYING licence file (because 
it's not supposed to be modified).

It could be in the User Manual, but that wouldn't carry much weight with the 
already worried, or perhaps the git(1) man page [E.g. 'discusssion' section 
maybe], or even in the git-scm.com 'book', but really it would need Jonathan 
(and others with similar FUD issues) to suggest what they'd need.

>
> Without such a statement, I think we have already seen that the
> commercial adoption is already appealing.
>

Hopefully the links can help Jonathan if he is having any local 
difficulties.

--
Philip 

Re: GPL v2 authoritative answer on stored code as a derived work

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Philip,

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Philip Oakley wrote:

> From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
> > Jonathan Smith <Jonathan.Smith@fphcare.co.nz> writes:
> >
> > > It's pretty clear that code stored in a Git repository isn't
> > > considered a derived work of Git, regardless of whether it is used
> > > in a commercial context or otherwise.
> 
> I'm guessing here, but I suspect that while its 'pretty clear' to Jonathan,
> that he has met others who aren't so clear or trusting, and it's that
> distrustful community that would need convincing.

It is not so much distrust as something you could take to court, I guess,
because an *authoritative* answer was asked for. Now, the question is a
legal one, so it is pretty clear (;-)) to me that only a lawyer could give
that answer.

Having said that, I know of plenty of companies storing their proprietary
code in Git repositories, and I would guess that they cleared that with
their lawyers first.

Jonathan, please do not take that as any indication that I try to give
this answer: if you want an authoritative answer to your question, you
really need to consider asking a lawyer.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: GPL v2 authoritative answer on stored code as a derived work

[Philip Oakley]

From: "Johannes Schindelin" <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 8:16 AM
> Hi Philip,
>
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Philip Oakley wrote:
>
>> From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
>> > Jonathan Smith <Jonathan.Smith@fphcare.co.nz> writes:
>> >
>> > > It's pretty clear that code stored in a Git repository isn't
>> > > considered a derived work of Git, regardless of whether it is used
>> > > in a commercial context or otherwise.
>>
>> I'm guessing here, but I suspect that while its 'pretty clear' to 
>> Jonathan,
>> that he has met others who aren't so clear or trusting, and it's that
>> distrustful community that would need convincing.
>
> It is not so much distrust as something you could take to court, I guess,
> because an *authoritative* answer was asked for. Now, the question is a
> legal one, so it is pretty clear (;-)) to me that only a lawyer could give
> that answer.
>
> Having said that, I know of plenty of companies storing their proprietary
> code in Git repositories, and I would guess that they cleared that with
> their lawyers first.

I've had a look though the various FAQs and other discussions about the
GPL and the FUD associated with it.

I've put together an outline of a patch to the git(1) man page, with commit
message to explain the issues (the lawyers need pointing in the right 
direction
so they can think clearly, rather than give the usual 'No' answer ;-)

Having it in $gmane at least captures the rationale, even if the patch goes
nowhere.

>
> Jonathan, please do not take that as any indication that I try to give
> this answer: if you want an authoritative answer to your question, you
> really need to consider asking a lawyer.
>
> Ciao,
> Dscho
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

[RFC/PATCH] Git doc: GPL2 does not apply to repo data

[Philip Oakley]

Some potential commercial users may be put off by the FUD
(Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) that has been raised in the past
regarding the use of FOSS software.

In such communities, even the legal advice may be misinformed
and over-cautious regarding the storage of code and other
intellectual property in a Git repository for fear that Git's
GPL2 licence may somehow 'infect' the respository.

Add simple statements highlighting Git's licence, it's use
for Linux, to imply industrial-strength, and that users should
apply a suitable licence of their choice because the Git GPL
licence does not apply to their repo data.

It should be noted that a 'git init' will create a repo that while
empty of user data does provide the .git directory structure, which
includes a number of template files ('hooks\pre-rebase.sample' is
explicitly copyright), default refs and config file. Some may suggest
that these carry the GPL2 to the repo.

The GPL2 will still apply to the hook templates and the other
template files, but these, even if modified (becoming derived works)
would be distributed with the repo, satisfying the GPL.

The new content copyright belongs to user. Request that they state
their licence terms in line with recent FOSS industry practice.

Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
---
asciidoc formatting not checked.

The fear of 'infection' of a repo by the templates copied to the
repo by 'git init', should not be underestimated, given the need
for the Bison exception. Sometimes it has to be spelt out why it's
not an issue (in the commit messsage)

https://help.github.com/articles/open-source-licensing/

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/284715/
---
 Documentation/git.txt | 11 +++++++++++
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/git.txt b/Documentation/git.txt
index bff6302..137c89c 100644
--- a/Documentation/git.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git.txt
@@ -1132,6 +1132,17 @@ of clones and fetches.
 	  - any external helpers are named by their protocol (e.g., use
 	    `hg` to allow the `git-remote-hg` helper)
 
+Licencing: Your data, and the Git tool[[Licencing]]
+---------------------------------------------------
+
+Git is an open source tool provided under GPL2.
+Git was designed to be, and is, the version control system
+for the Linux codebase.
+Your respository data created by Git is not subject to Git's GNU2
+licence, see GPL FAQs
+http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#TOCGPLOutput).
+
+User should apply a licence of their own choice to their repository data.
 
 Discussion[[Discussion]]
 ------------------------
-- 
2.7.0.windows.1

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Git doc: GPL2 does not apply to repo data

[Junio C Hamano]

Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:

> diff --git a/Documentation/git.txt b/Documentation/git.txt
> index bff6302..137c89c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git.txt
> @@ -1132,6 +1132,17 @@ of clones and fetches.
>  	  - any external helpers are named by their protocol (e.g., use
>  	    `hg` to allow the `git-remote-hg` helper)
>  
> +Licencing: Your data, and the Git tool[[Licencing]]
> +---------------------------------------------------
> +
> +Git is an open source tool provided under GPL2.
> +Git was designed to be, and is, the version control system
> +for the Linux codebase.
> +Your respository data created by Git is not subject to Git's GNU2
> +licence, see GPL FAQs
> +http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#TOCGPLOutput).
> +
> +User should apply a licence of their own choice to their repository data.
>  
>  Discussion[[Discussion]]
>  ------------------------

While I know you mean well, and I do understand the sentiment behind
this addition, there are at least two reasons why I do not want to
(and why we should not) add any "clarification" or "interpretation"
like this.

One is because such a statement is pointless.  Because we do not do
copyright assignment to the project, you are not the sole copyright
owner of Git.  Individual contributors hold copyright to the part
they wrote.  The above statement you made, even with an endorsement
by me as the project lead, does not have any power to assure that
the users will not get sued by one copyright holder, who is not you
or me, and at that point it is up to the court to interpret GPLv2.
We can call such a copyright holder crazy or call such a suit
frivolous, but that does not change the fact that the court is what
decides the matter, so having that statement does not help the user.

Another is because we are amateurs.  Philip, you may or may not be a
lawyer yourself, but I know you are not _our_ lawyer.  An amateurish
"interpretation" or "clarification" does not necessarily clarify the
text but it muddies it, especially when done carelessly.  Imagine a
case where a user creates a derived work of Git itself and stored it
in a Git repository.  "Your respository data created by Git is not
subject to Git's GNU2"--really?  At least the phrasing must say that
the act of storing something in Git alone would not *MAKE* that
something governed under GPLv2.  What the user puts in Git may
already be covered under GPLv2 for other reasons, and a statement
carelessly written like the above can be twisted to read as if we
are endorsing use of our code outside GPLv2 as long as they store it
in Git repository, which is not what you meant to say, but "that is
not what the copyright holder meant" is another thing the lawyer
need to argue in court to convince the judge, when we need to go
after a real copyright violator.

We should leave the lawyering to real lawyers and we should not add
unnecessary work of interpreting our amateurish loose statement to
our laywers.

Thanks.

RE: [RFC/PATCH] Git doc: GPL2 does not apply to repo data

[Jonathan Smith]

Hi all

I would like to thank you each for being so helpful with my request.

As a humble developer trying to penetrate the corporate environment with leading technologies such as Git, it's awesome to know you guys are so proactive with providing support.

I'll be taking all of your contributions as ammo as I continue to fight for Git here.

Thank you!

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Junio C Hamano [mailto:gitster@pobox.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 11:08 AM
To: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Cc: GitList <git@vger.kernel.org>; Jonathan Smith <Jonathan.Smith@fphcare.co.nz>; Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Git doc: GPL2 does not apply to repo data

Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:

> diff --git a/Documentation/git.txt b/Documentation/git.txt index 
> bff6302..137c89c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git.txt
> @@ -1132,6 +1132,17 @@ of clones and fetches.
>  	  - any external helpers are named by their protocol (e.g., use
>  	    `hg` to allow the `git-remote-hg` helper)
>  
> +Licencing: Your data, and the Git tool[[Licencing]]
> +---------------------------------------------------
> +
> +Git is an open source tool provided under GPL2.
> +Git was designed to be, and is, the version control system for the 
> +Linux codebase.
> +Your respository data created by Git is not subject to Git's GNU2 
> +licence, see GPL FAQs 
> +http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#TOCGPLOutput).
> +
> +User should apply a licence of their own choice to their repository data.
>  
>  Discussion[[Discussion]]
>  ------------------------

While I know you mean well, and I do understand the sentiment behind this addition, there are at least two reasons why I do not want to (and why we should not) add any "clarification" or "interpretation"
like this.

One is because such a statement is pointless.  Because we do not do copyright assignment to the project, you are not the sole copyright owner of Git.  Individual contributors hold copyright to the part they wrote.  The above statement you made, even with an endorsement by me as the project lead, does not have any power to assure that the users will not get sued by one copyright holder, who is not you or me, and at that point it is up to the court to interpret GPLv2.
We can call such a copyright holder crazy or call such a suit frivolous, but that does not change the fact that the court is what decides the matter, so having that statement does not help the user.

Another is because we are amateurs.  Philip, you may or may not be a lawyer yourself, but I know you are not _our_ lawyer.  An amateurish "interpretation" or "clarification" does not necessarily clarify the text but it muddies it, especially when done carelessly.  Imagine a case where a user creates a derived work of Git itself and stored it in a Git repository.  "Your respository data created by Git is not subject to Git's GNU2"--really?  At least the phrasing must say that the act of storing something in Git alone would not *MAKE* that something governed under GPLv2.  What the user puts in Git may already be covered under GPLv2 for other reasons, and a statement carelessly written like the above can be twisted to read as if we are endorsing use of our code outside GPLv2 as long as they s
 tore it in Git repository, which is not what you meant to say, but "that is not what the copyright holder meant" is another thing the lawyer need to argue in court to convince the judge, when we need to go after a real copyright violator.

We should leave the lawyering to real lawyers and we should not add unnecessary work of interpreting our amateurish loose statement to our laywers.

Thanks.
____________________________________________________________

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information. If you
are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error)
please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any
unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this 
e-mail is strictly forbidden.

RE: [RFC/PATCH] Git doc: GPL2 does not apply to repo data

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Jonathan,

On Sun, 31 Jan 2016, Jonathan Smith wrote:

> I'll be taking all of your contributions as ammo as I continue to fight
> for Git here.

I would hope that it is unnecessary to point weapons at managers to
"convince" them to use Git.

In the meantime, I think we have accumulated a lot of arguments in favor
of using Git to manage source code.

For less tech-savvy managers, I found that name dropping works quite well
(read: naming a couple of well-known companies/products that switched to
Git).

Ciao,
Johannes

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Git doc: GPL2 does not apply to repo data

[Matthieu Moy]

----- Original Message -----
> For less tech-savvy managers, I found that name dropping works quite well
> (read: naming a couple of well-known companies/products that switched to
> Git).

In the same category: "GitHub has 12 millions users" works rather well.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Git doc: GPL2 does not apply to repo data

[Jeff King]

On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 08:49:55AM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > For less tech-savvy managers, I found that name dropping works quite well
> > (read: naming a couple of well-known companies/products that switched to
> > Git).
> 
> In the same category: "GitHub has 12 millions users" works rather well.

Who's to say GitHub's business plan isn't to become a copyright troll? :)

On a more serious note, this FAQ (and the one right after) might be
useful for convincing people:

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLOutput

Data that git stores is not strictly "output", but I think the answers
there are relevant. And presumably written or vetted by lawyers, too.

-Peff

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Git doc: GPL2 does not apply to repo data

[Jeff King]

On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 03:14:31AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:

> On a more serious note, this FAQ (and the one right after) might be
> useful for convincing people:
> 
>   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLOutput
> 
> Data that git stores is not strictly "output", but I think the answers
> there are relevant. And presumably written or vetted by lawyers, too.

Whoops, I just noticed this is the exact entry from Philip's patch. :-/

Sorry for the noise (and I do think it is a good link to help answer
this question, but I agree with Junio that we can let that FAQ stand on
its own without adding our own amateur-lawyer language to it).

-Peff

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Git doc: GPL2 does not apply to repo data

[Philip Oakley]

From: "Jeff King" <peff@peff.net>
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 08:49:55AM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > For less tech-savvy managers, I found that name dropping works quite 
>> > well
>> > (read: naming a couple of well-known companies/products that switched 
>> > to
>> > Git).
>>
>> In the same category: "GitHub has 12 millions users" works rather well.
>
> Who's to say GitHub's business plan isn't to become a copyright troll? :)
>
> On a more serious note, this FAQ (and the one right after) might be
> useful for convincing people:
>
>  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLOutput
>

I'd added a link to the GPL2 faq version of that, though my link did take 
the reader to the contents list item.

The oddball is the templates, which could be argued are full GPL2 (see the 
mention of Bison in that same paragraph), and would need a further notice 
about their licence terms (given an insistent copyright holder!)

> Data that git stores is not strictly "output", but I think the answers
> there are relevant. And presumably written or vetted by lawyers, too.
>
> -Peff
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Git doc: GPL2 does not apply to repo data

[Philip Oakley]

From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
> Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git.txt b/Documentation/git.txt
>> index bff6302..137c89c 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/git.txt
>> @@ -1132,6 +1132,17 @@ of clones and fetches.
>>    - any external helpers are named by their protocol (e.g., use
>>      `hg` to allow the `git-remote-hg` helper)
>>
>> +Licencing: Your data, and the Git tool[[Licencing]]
>> +---------------------------------------------------
>> +
>> +Git is an open source tool provided under GPL2.
>> +Git was designed to be, and is, the version control system
>> +for the Linux codebase.
>> +Your respository data created by Git is not subject to Git's GNU2
>> +licence, see GPL FAQs
>> +http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#TOCGPLOutput).
>> +
>> +User should apply a licence of their own choice to their repository 
>> data.
>>
>>  Discussion[[Discussion]]
>>  ------------------------
>
> While I know you mean well, and I do understand the sentiment behind
> this addition,
It was an RFC for that very sentiment.

>             there are at least two reasons why I do not want to
> (and why we should not) add any "clarification" or "interpretation"
> like this.
>
> One is because such a statement is pointless.  Because we do not do
> copyright assignment to the project, you are not the sole copyright
> owner of Git.  Individual contributors hold copyright to the part
> they wrote.  The above statement you made, even with an endorsement
> by me as the project lead, does not have any power to assure that
> the users will not get sued by one copyright holder, who is not you
> or me, and at that point it is up to the court to interpret GPLv2.
> We can call such a copyright holder crazy or call such a suit
> frivolous, but that does not change the fact that the court is what
> decides the matter, so having that statement does not help the user.
>
> Another is because we are amateurs.  Philip, you may or may not be a
> lawyer yourself,

Correct, but as an Engineer I do get to review terms & conditions and 
specifications quite often..

>    but I know you are not _our_ lawyer.  An amateurish
> "interpretation" or "clarification" does not necessarily clarify the
> text but it muddies it, especially when done carelessly.  Imagine a
> case where a user creates a derived work of Git itself and stored it
> in a Git repository.

>      "Your respository data created by Git is not
> subject to Git's GNU2"--really?  At least the phrasing must say that
> the act of storing something in Git alone would not *MAKE* that
> something governed under GPLv2.

I can see the potential double meaning now you highlight it - I was thinking 
of the 'if it's _your_ data, you can choose'; however if it's not your data, 
the originator's restrictions would apply - that wasn't said.

>     What the user puts in Git may
> already be covered under GPLv2 for other reasons, and a statement
> carelessly written like the above can be twisted to read as if we
> are endorsing use of our code outside GPLv2 as long as they store it
> in Git repository, which is not what you meant to say, but "that is
> not what the copyright holder meant" is another thing the lawyer
> need to argue in court to convince the judge, when we need to go
> after a real copyright violator.
>
> We should leave the lawyering to real lawyers and we should not add
> unnecessary work of interpreting our amateurish loose statement to
> our laywers.

Given Jonathan's question, and your earlier feedback, it did feel that a bit 
of clear blue water would be useful between Git (the DVCS), and /.git/ (the 
repo contents), even if it were only to clarify the issues...

>
> Thanks.
>
--
Philip 

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Git doc: GPL2 does not apply to repo data

[Philip Oakley]

From: "Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org>
>>
>> We should leave the lawyering to real lawyers and we should not add
>> unnecessary work of interpreting our amateurish loose statement to
>> our laywers.
>
> Given Jonathan's question, and your earlier feedback, it did feel that a 
> bit of clear blue water would be useful between Git (the DVCS), and /.git/ 
> (the repo contents), even if it were only to clarify the issues...

s/if it were/if the discussions were/

I was *not* meaning that 'it' meant a doc patch.
sorry for the lack of clarity there.
>
> --
> Philip
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>