From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Philip Oakley" Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Git doc: GPL2 does not apply to repo data Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 10:53:51 -0000 Organization: OPDS Message-ID: <82BCD59FE1254625963FF9A6CB98DC51@PhilipOakley> References: <1454274011-4880-1-git-send-email-philipoakley@iee.org> Reply-To: "Philip Oakley" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "GitList" , "Jonathan Smith" , "Johannes Schindelin" To: "Junio C Hamano" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 01 11:53:57 2016 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 1aQC7I-00025a-ME for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 11:53:57 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753405AbcBAKxx (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Feb 2016 05:53:53 -0500 Received: from out1.ip01ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.237]:30515 "EHLO out1.ip01ir2.opaltelecom.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753252AbcBAKxw (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Feb 2016 05:53:52 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2DTWgDuN69WPN7OYAJdGQEBAQELAQIBAQEBAYMKUm2HTYELr0ZsgxgkhWEEBAKBM00BAQEBAQEHAQEBAUEkG0EBBAkBg2wFAQEBAQIBCAEBLh4BASEFBgIDBQIBAxUMJRQBBBoGBwMUBhMIAQEBAgMBiAIMCrQciCABAQgCHoYPhDeEFoNHgQ8Fh1OGCokSAYE5jWyHZ4UuimyDUoJkGYFRPC4BAQGDVoIugnYBAQE X-IPAS-Result: A2DTWgDuN69WPN7OYAJdGQEBAQELAQIBAQEBAYMKUm2HTYELr0ZsgxgkhWEEBAKBM00BAQEBAQEHAQEBAUEkG0EBBAkBg2wFAQEBAQIBCAEBLh4BASEFBgIDBQIBAxUMJRQBBBoGBwMUBhMIAQEBAgMBiAIMCrQciCABAQgCHoYPhDeEFoNHgQ8Fh1OGCokSAYE5jWyHZ4UuimyDUoJkGYFRPC4BAQGDVoIugnYBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,379,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="860503030" Received: from host-2-96-206-222.as13285.net (HELO PhilipOakley) ([2.96.206.222]) by out1.ip01ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 01 Feb 2016 10:53:49 +0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: From: "Junio C Hamano" > Philip Oakley 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