{"thread":{"id":"32746","subject":"Re: [git-multimail] License unknown (#1)","startedAt":"2013-01-27T18:52:58Z","lastAt":"2013-02-13T12:10:26Z","messageCount":4,"participants":["Michael Haggerty","Andy Parkins"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"207967","messageId":"5105778A.1040401@alum.mit.edu","threadId":"32746","inReplyTo":"mhagger/git-multimail/issues/1/12754195@github.com","subject":"Re: [git-multimail] License unknown (#1)","fromName":"Michael Haggerty","fromEmail":"mhagger@alum.mit.edu","sentAt":"2013-01-27T18:52:58Z","receivedAt":"2013-01-27T18:52:58Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"mhagger@alum.mit.edu","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/119718?v=4"},"body":"I have a question about the license of contrib/hooks/post-commit-email.\n I had assumed that since it is in the git project, which is GPLv2, and\nsince it contains no contrary information, it would by implication also\nfall under GPLv2. But the file itself contains no explicit license\ninformation, and it is not clear to me that the \"signed-off-by\" line\nimplies a particular license, either. (The signed-off-by *does* seem to\nimply that the source code is under some kind of open source license,\nbut not which one.)\n\nIf somebody can explain what license the code is under and how they come\nto that conclusion, I would be very grateful.\n\nAnd if Andy Parkins (the original author) is listening, please indicate\nwhether you had any intent *other* than GPLv2.\n\nFor anybody who is interested, the file was first committed in\n4557e0de5b and has been modified by several authors since then.\n\nGiven the pretty clear open-sourciness of the script, I don't think this\nhas to be made into a big issue. But it would be nice to state the\nlicense explicitly for future users' information.\n\nThanks,\nMichael\n\nOn 01/27/2013 02:38 PM, Michiel Holtkamp wrote:\n> Actually, I'm not sure that it is GPLv2 for the original script. The\n> COPYING file in the main project declares the project as GPLv2, but it\n> also says that people contributing should make their preferences (for\n> licensing) known. Maybe we can assume it's GPLv2, (as the original\n> writer might have assumed it was GPLv2), but it's not explicitly stated\n> so I'm not sure (IANAL).\n\n-- \nMichael Haggerty\nmhagger@alum.mit.edu\nhttp://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/\n"},{"id":"209372","messageId":"201302121511.36316.andyp@fussylogic.co.uk","threadId":"32746","inReplyTo":"511A04DA.7010809@alum.mit.edu","subject":"Re: Fwd: Re: [git-multimail] License unknown (#1)","fromName":"Andy Parkins","fromEmail":"andyp@fussylogic.co.uk","sentAt":"2013-02-12T15:11:36Z","receivedAt":"2013-02-12T15:11:36Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"andyp@fussylogic.co.uk","avatar":null},"body":"On Tuesday 12 February 2013 09:01:14 Michael Haggerty wrote:\n\n> I assume you are the Andy Parkins who originally submitted\n> post-commit-email to the Git project...\n\nI am indeed. Hello.\n\n> I have derived another script from yours:\n> \n> https://github.com/mhagger/git-multimail\n> \n> I affixed the GPLv2 boilerplate to the code under the assumption that it\n> inherited this license from the Git project. But afterwards I realized\n> that I am not entirely confident that the GPLv2 applies to\n> post-commit-email.\n\nI'm sorry, that's entirely my fault. I had read somewhere in the git \nsubmission policy that everything submitted was naturally under the same \nlicense as git itself.\n \n> Obviously the situation is even more complicated because other people\n> have contributed patches to the script since your original submission.\n> But it would nevertheless be very helpful if you would clarify your\n> original intention, *especially* if your intention was to put the script\n> under a license different than GPLv2.\n\nMy intention was to put my code under exactly the license the git itself is \nunder. I am delighted for you or anyone else to use or derive from it.\n\nI'm also sorry I didn't respond to your first email, it accidentally got \nsorted into spam.\n\nIf anyone wants some sort of legal declaration, I'm happy to give it.\n\n> -------- Original Message --------\n> Subject: Re: [git-multimail] License unknown (#1)\n> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:52:58 +0100\n> From: Michael Haggerty \n> To: git discussion list , Andy Parkins\n> \n> CC: mhagger/git-multimail\n> hub.com>, Michiel Holtkamp \n> \n> I have a question about the license of contrib/hooks/post-commit-email.\n> I had assumed that since it is in the git project, which is GPLv2, and\n> since it contains no contrary information, it would by implication also\n> fall under GPLv2. But the file itself contains no explicit license\n> information, and it is not clear to me that the \"signed-off-by\" line\n> implies a particular license, either. (The signed-off-by *does* seem to\n> imply that the source code is under some kind of open source license,\n> but not which one.)\n> \n> If somebody can explain what license the code is under and how they come\n> to that conclusion, I would be very grateful.\n> \n> And if Andy Parkins (the original author) is listening, please indicate\n> whether you had any intent *other* than GPLv2.\n> \n> For anybody who is interested, the file was first committed in\n> 4557e0de5b and has been modified by several authors since then.\n> \n> Given the pretty clear open-sourciness of the script, I don't think this\n> has to be made into a big issue. But it would be nice to state the\n> license explicitly for future users' information.\n> \n> Thanks,\n> Michael\n> \n> On 01/27/2013 02:38 PM, Michiel Holtkamp wrote:\n> > Actually, I'm not sure that it is GPLv2 for the original script. The\n> > COPYING file in the main project declares the project as GPLv2, but it\n> > also says that people contributing should make their preferences (for\n> > licensing) known. Maybe we can assume it's GPLv2, (as the original\n> > writer might have assumed it was GPLv2), but it's not explicitly stated\n> > so I'm not sure (IANAL).\n\n-- \nDr Andy Parkins\nDirector\nFussyLogic Ltd\n\ntel: 0845 557 7645\n\nweb: www.fussylogic.co.uk\n\nCompany Registration No. 8198285 Registered in England and Wales\n\n This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are\n intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed.\n Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do\n not necessarily represent those of FussyLogic Ltd.\n\n If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither\n take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to\n anyone.\n \n Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email\n in error.\n"},{"id":"209373","messageId":"201302121528.07961.andyparkins@gmail.com","threadId":"32746","inReplyTo":"5105778A.1040401@alum.mit.edu","subject":"Re: [git-multimail] License unknown (#1)","fromName":"Andy Parkins","fromEmail":"andyparkins@gmail.com","sentAt":"2013-02-12T15:28:07Z","receivedAt":"2013-02-12T15:28:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"andyparkins@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Sunday 27 January 2013 18:52:58 Michael Haggerty wrote:\n> I have a question about the license of contrib/hooks/post-commit-email.\n> I had assumed that since it is in the git project, which is GPLv2, and\n> since it contains no contrary information, it would by implication also\n> fall under GPLv2. But the file itself contains no explicit license\n> information, and it is not clear to me that the \"signed-off-by\" line\n> implies a particular license, either. (The signed-off-by *does* seem to\n> imply that the source code is under some kind of open source license,\n> but not which one.)\n\nKeeping up with the git mailing list got a bit much, but my original filters \nto sort messages from it into a (now hidden) folder where still in place. \nMichael contacted me independently, which was enough of a prod to see this.\n\nMy apologies to everyone; I've been lax supporting the script -- I never \nreally expected it to be as widely used as it has been, I was always expecting \nsomeone would come along and replace it so I'm pleased that Michael has done \nso (although it's a little disheartening to read of it being called \"hacky\", \nwhen I tried very hard to make it as clear and modular as I could).\n\n> If somebody can explain what license the code is under and how they come\n> to that conclusion, I would be very grateful.\n> \n> And if Andy Parkins (the original author) is listening, please indicate\n> whether you had any intent *other* than GPLv2.\n\nI intended it to be under the same license as Git. I had read in one of the \npatch submission files (which I can't seem to find now) that all submissions \nwere considered part of git.\n\n> For anybody who is interested, the file was first committed in\n> 4557e0de5b and has been modified by several authors since then.\n\nI haven't looked at it for a long time. I can't speak for the other authors, \nbut for any part of it that is still mine -- anyone is free to do anything \nthey wish with it.\n\n> Given the pretty clear open-sourciness of the script, I don't think this\n> has to be made into a big issue. But it would be nice to state the\n> license explicitly for future users' information.\n\nIf an explicit declaration is needed, I am happy to give it. Let me know what \nform this should take and I'll supply it.\n\n\n\nAndy\n\n-- \nDr Andy Parkins\nandyparkins@gmail.com\n"},{"id":"209463","messageId":"511B82B2.8030803@alum.mit.edu","threadId":"32746","inReplyTo":"201302121528.07961.andyparkins@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [git-multimail] License unknown (#1)","fromName":"Michael Haggerty","fromEmail":"mhagger@alum.mit.edu","sentAt":"2013-02-13T12:10:26Z","receivedAt":"2013-02-13T12:10:26Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"mhagger@alum.mit.edu","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/119718?v=4"},"body":"On 02/12/2013 04:28 PM, Andy Parkins wrote:\n> On Sunday 27 January 2013 18:52:58 Michael Haggerty wrote:\n>> I have a question about the license of contrib/hooks/post-commit-email.\n>> [...]\n> \n> Keeping up with the git mailing list got a bit much, [...]\n\nVery understandable :-)\n\n> My apologies to everyone; I've been lax supporting the script -- I never \n> really expected it to be as widely used as it has been, I was always expecting \n> someone would come along and replace it so I'm pleased that Michael has done \n> so (although it's a little disheartening to read of it being called \"hacky\", \n> when I tried very hard to make it as clear and modular as I could).\n\nFWIW I think the script was quite well-structured (within the\nlimitations of shell scripting anyway) and I had no problem\nunderstanding it and translating it to Python.\n\n>> If somebody can explain what license the code is under and how they come\n>> to that conclusion, I would be very grateful.\n>>\n>> And if Andy Parkins (the original author) is listening, please indicate\n>> whether you had any intent *other* than GPLv2.\n> \n> I intended it to be under the same license as Git. I had read in one of the \n> patch submission files (which I can't seem to find now) that all submissions \n> were considered part of git.\n\nThanks. Given that you submitted the original version under GPLv2, and\nlater contributors certainly had no reason to assume any *other*\nlicense, I think any reasonable person will be satisfied that the whole\nscript in its current form is under GPLv2.\n\n> If an explicit declaration is needed, I am happy to give it. Let me know what \n> form this should take and I'll supply it.\n\nPersonally, I am satisfied by your email statement. I will leave the\nderived work, git-multimail, also under GPLv2. Assuming that\ngit-multimail supersedes yours, its explicit choice of license will make\nthe situation clear for future users.\n\nThanks!\nMichael\n\n-- \nMichael Haggerty\nmhagger@alum.mit.edu\nhttp://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/\n"}]}