{"thread":{"id":"47092","subject":"Contribution licensing question(s)","startedAt":"2017-11-01T15:50:07Z","lastAt":"2017-11-01T18:59:57Z","messageCount":4,"participants":["Elijah Newren","Stefan Beller","Jeff King"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"331571","messageId":"CABPp-BF5Aitu05X83Lbm+8rWKojOnNNec_4bf5PRy+hKZGPPHw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"47092","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Contribution licensing question(s)","fromName":"Elijah Newren","fromEmail":"newren@gmail.com","sentAt":"2017-11-01T15:50:00Z","receivedAt":"2017-11-01T15:50:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"newren@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5455730?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nMy employer has a new-ish open-source-contribution process, and is\ncurious about some licensing question(s) before I submit a few patch\nseries.\n\nBackground: git's README.md file points out that some parts of git are\nunder a license other than GPLv2 (while still GPLv2-compatible),\nthough it doesn't state which one(s) or what a contributor might want\nto do if they want to grant permission under one of those more\npermissive license(s). Also, I seem to recall that years ago there\nwere requests to make code available under a slightly more permissive\nlicense to allow re-usage in jgit and perhaps other projects, though I\ncan't find any trace of this in the codebase.  git's COPYING file has\nwording suggesting how to make a license transition (to GPLv3) easier,\nbut only considers completely new files as opposed to (significant)\nmodifications to existing files.\n\nI'm not sure whether my specific git contributions would matter to\njgit (which we also use internally, both directly and indirectly), but\ngenerally, is contributing under a more permissive GPLv2-compatible\nlicense to permit re-usage in other projects like jgit (or for easing\nfuture license switches) still relevant?  If so, which license(s) have\nfolks gravitated towards for these contributions, and how would one\nmark their submitted patches?\n\nThanks,\nElijah\n"},{"id":"331589","messageId":"CAGZ79kYM83May-S3jtXzaAucu_6U=ZJ+mGtqMT=GWqY3B66icg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"47092","inReplyTo":"CABPp-BF5Aitu05X83Lbm+8rWKojOnNNec_4bf5PRy+hKZGPPHw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Contribution licensing question(s)","fromName":"Stefan Beller","fromEmail":"sbeller@google.com","sentAt":"2017-11-01T18:32:47Z","receivedAt":"2017-11-01T18:32:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stefanbeller@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/455868?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> wrote:\n> Hi,\n>\n> My employer has a new-ish open-source-contribution process, and is\n> curious about some licensing question(s) before I submit a few patch\n> series.\n\ncool. :)\n\n> Background: git's README.md file points out that some parts of git are\n> under a license other than GPLv2 (while still GPLv2-compatible),\n\ne.g. xdiff/* seems to have headers indicating it is LGPL.\notherwise I suspect contrib/ to be a fun place to look for different licenses.\nIIUC, the files in builtin/ as well as the root of the git repo are all GPLv2,\nthough I am not your lawyer.\n\n> though it doesn't state which one(s) or what a contributor might want\n> to do if they want to grant permission under one of those more\n\nI'd be surprised if we had anything more permissive than GPL,\ne.g. BSD, APACHE in the tree outside of contrib/.\n\n> permissive license(s). Also, I seem to recall that years ago there\n> were requests to make code available under a slightly more permissive\n> license to allow re-usage in jgit\n\nJGit is in Java, so you have to rewrite the code anyway?\n\n> and perhaps other projects, though I\n> can't find any trace of this in the codebase.  git's COPYING file has\n> wording suggesting how to make a license transition (to GPLv3) easier,\n> but only considers completely new files as opposed to (significant)\n> modifications to existing files.\n\nI think going to GPLv3 is a pipe dream by now:\n\n  git shortlog -sne | wc -l\n  1589\n\nIt will be hard to identify all the contributors that had meaningful\ncontributions (more than a typofix?) and ask them if they agree\non a re-licensing of the code they submitted at the time.\n\nThese potential contributors may have changed their email address\n(e.g. by switching jobs, whereas the copyright is with the employer\nanyways, usually. :/)\n\n> I'm not sure whether my specific git contributions would matter to\n> jgit (which we also use internally, both directly and indirectly), but\n> generally, is contributing under a more permissive GPLv2-compatible\n> license to permit re-usage in other projects like jgit (or for easing\n> future license switches) still relevant?\n\nContributions to git ask for your 'sign off', which ensures that\nthe conditions in https://developercertificate.org/ are met.\nThe first point points out \"open source license indicated in the file\".\nHowever most files (e.g. git.c) have no license header and just\nassume the license as in COPYING.\n\n>  If so, which license(s) have\n> folks gravitated towards for these contributions, and how would one\n> mark their submitted patches?\n\nThat is an interesting question. When adding new files, maybe\nby a file header? Existing files are more interesting though.\n\nStefan\n"},{"id":"331590","messageId":"20171101183829.mwoi7urka3hze3pm@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"47092","inReplyTo":"CABPp-BF5Aitu05X83Lbm+8rWKojOnNNec_4bf5PRy+hKZGPPHw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Contribution licensing question(s)","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2017-11-01T18:38:29Z","receivedAt":"2017-11-01T18:38:36Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 08:50:00AM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:\n\n> Background: git's README.md file points out that some parts of git are\n> under a license other than GPLv2 (while still GPLv2-compatible),\n> though it doesn't state which one(s)\n\nI think this note is mostly about code we've imported from elsewhere.\nFor example, libxdiff seems to be under LGPL.\n\n> or what a contributor might want\n> to do if they want to grant permission under one of those more\n> permissive license(s).\n\nIf it's a whole file or subsystem that can be used standalone, I think\nit would make sense to mark the copyright at the top of the file (like\nxdiff does).\n\nFor smaller bits or changes to GPL'd code, it's not clear to me if you\ncan meaningfully dual-license them. I.e., I think you hit a question of\nwhether small changes are copyrightable in themselves or if they're\nsimply a derived work of Git. I'll leave that one to people more clueful\nabout legal issues.\n\n> Also, I seem to recall that years ago there\n> were requests to make code available under a slightly more permissive\n> license to allow re-usage in jgit and perhaps other projects, though I\n> can't find any trace of this in the codebase.\n\nThis was mostly done for the libgit2 project, which uses GPL with a\nlinking exception:\n\n  https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/blob/master/COPYING\n\nWhen that project started, they asked for dual-license permission from\nvarious git.git contributors, which is documented in that repo:\n\n  https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/blob/master/git.git-authors\n\n> I'm not sure whether my specific git contributions would matter to\n> jgit (which we also use internally, both directly and indirectly), but\n> generally, is contributing under a more permissive GPLv2-compatible\n> license to permit re-usage in other projects like jgit (or for easing\n> future license switches) still relevant?  If so, which license(s) have\n> folks gravitated towards for these contributions, and how would one\n> mark their submitted patches?\n\nHopefully the above answers most of these questions. But I think in\ngeneral the approach is not \"license it differently in git.git\", but\n\"grant those other projects a different license to use your code, too\".\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"331593","messageId":"CABPp-BFT+_WXyYFN1t18TLaLzZfJYtGAS3SqK3TxPT6toH-obw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"47092","inReplyTo":"20171101183829.mwoi7urka3hze3pm@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Contribution licensing question(s)","fromName":"Elijah Newren","fromEmail":"newren@gmail.com","sentAt":"2017-11-01T18:59:51Z","receivedAt":"2017-11-01T18:59:57Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"newren@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5455730?v=4"},"body":"Hi Peff,\n\nOn Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:\n\n> This was mostly done for the libgit2 project, which uses GPL with a\n> linking exception:\n>\n>   https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/blob/master/COPYING\n>\n> When that project started, they asked for dual-license permission from\n> various git.git contributors, which is documented in that repo:\n>\n>   https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/blob/master/git.git-authors\n\nAh, thanks, not sure why I had mis-remembered that as being a jgit\nthing.  Thanks for jogging my memory.  I think that (and your comment\nto just grant other projects a different license) answers the main\nquestion; I'll take it back and see what they say.\n\nThanks,\nElijah\n"}]}