{"thread":{"id":"57268","subject":"Dangling copyright in git hook template","startedAt":"2022-01-19T17:51:49Z","lastAt":"2022-01-19T21:25:41Z","messageCount":3,"participants":["Frederic Tessier","Junio C Hamano"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"446509","messageId":"CAB7QKarvGGjNf-bvuKqwnAVT_wX_=J+Dh0-AEdKPdVMbkSzW3Q@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"57268","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Dangling copyright in git hook template","fromName":"Frederic Tessier","fromEmail":"ftessier@gmail.com","sentAt":"2022-01-19T17:51:34Z","receivedAt":"2022-01-19T17:51:49Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ftessier@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Thank you for filling out a Git bug report!\nPlease answer the following questions to help us understand your issue.\n\nWhat did you do before the bug happened? (Steps to reproduce your issue)\ngit init\n\nWhat did you expect to happen? (Expected behavior)\nNew repo initialized containing no copyright claims\n\nWhat happened instead? (Actual behavior)\nNew repo initialized with a copyright claim in .git/hooks/pre-rebase.sample:\n# Copyright (c) 2006, 2008 Junio C Hamano\n\nWhat's different between what you expected and what actually happened?\nThere is a file in the fresh repo (copied from the template file\ngit-core/templates/hooks/pre-rebase.sample) which contains a copyright\nstatement, moreover without any licence to use the file.\n\nAnything else you want to add:\nThis also happens upon running the 'git clone' command. This is an issue\nbecause when users clone a project, they are left with a copyrighted dependency\n(without any licence), even though the repository itself did not contain that\nfile. This occurs tacitly, and users would be unknowingly violating the\ncopyright if they happened to further convey the file.\n\nPlease review the rest of the bug report below.\nYou can delete any lines you don't wish to share.\n\n[System Info]\ngit version:\ngit version 2.34.1\n\n[Enabled Hooks]\n"},{"id":"446519","messageId":"xmqqbl07mrp3.fsf@gitster.g","threadId":"57268","inReplyTo":"CAB7QKarvGGjNf-bvuKqwnAVT_wX_=J+Dh0-AEdKPdVMbkSzW3Q@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Dangling copyright in git hook template","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2022-01-19T19:49:28Z","receivedAt":"2022-01-19T19:49:32Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Frederic Tessier writes:\n\n> What did you expect to happen? (Expected behavior)\n> New repo initialized containing no copyright claims\n>\n> What happened instead? (Actual behavior)\n> New repo initialized with a copyright claim in .git/hooks/pre-rebase.sample:\n> # Copyright (c) 2006, 2008 Junio C Hamano\n\nBecause the sample files are copied verbatim, with or without such\ncopyright notice message, they are copyrighted by their respective\ncopyright holders. And their modification and distribution should\nfollow the same licensing terms (i.e. GPLv2) as our source files.\n\nRemoving that single line would not change anything, as these days\nthe written copyright notice is optional across the globe.\n\nWe could probably stop shipping these .sample hook files, or the\nusers can ignore them with the same ease.\n\nI dunno. An alternative position on the other extreme is to find\nand convince all the copyright holders of template/, relicense these\nfiles under less restrictive license _and_ state the license clearly\nin each of these files. I think that ought to be our long term\ndirection.\n\nThanks for bringing this up.\n"},{"id":"446523","messageId":"CAB7QKapGFZa4b7YKGgQkAnHnOWnC2K+ouN-qQpoAW348gg1K7Q@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"57268","inReplyTo":"xmqqbl07mrp3.fsf@gitster.g","subject":"Re: Dangling copyright in git hook template","fromName":"Frederic Tessier","fromEmail":"ftessier@gmail.com","sentAt":"2022-01-19T21:25:26Z","receivedAt":"2022-01-19T21:25:41Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ftessier@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Hi,\n\nThank you for the quick response! My approach on this was that the\nline tripped the licence analysis for our organization projects, but\nyou are entirely right: removing the line does not change anything, as\nthe copyright notice is optional (I did not know that was true\nglobally, thanks for pointing that out).\n\nIt would be great if the samples were explicitly under MIT licence or\nother permissive option. In the short term, perhaps do not copy the\ntemplates by default, or make that a git config option, or else not\ncopy the templates when running `git clone`?\n\nI realize this is not a big deal, especially since it is unlikely\nsomeone would distribute files in .git by mistake. However, upon\ncloning my repo, someone could be under the *impression* that I am\nviolating copyright since it appears in the repo; alas, my employer\n(government) is a stickler when it comes to managing copyright! :-)\n\nAt any rate, minor point, but thanks for listening, and for taking the\ntime to reply. Much appreciated.\n\nRegards,\nFrédéric.\n\nOn Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 14:49, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>\n> Frederic Tessier writes:\n>\n> > What did you expect to happen? (Expected behavior)\n> > New repo initialized containing no copyright claims\n> >\n> > What happened instead? (Actual behavior)\n> > New repo initialized with a copyright claim in .git/hooks/pre-rebase.sample:\n> > # Copyright (c) 2006, 2008 Junio C Hamano\n>\n> Because the sample files are copied verbatim, with or without such\n> copyright notice message, they are copyrighted by their respective\n> copyright holders. And their modification and distribution should\n> follow the same licensing terms (i.e. GPLv2) as our source files.\n>\n> Removing that single line would not change anything, as these days\n> the written copyright notice is optional across the globe.\n>\n> We could probably stop shipping these .sample hook files, or the\n> users can ignore them with the same ease.\n>\n> I dunno. An alternative position on the other extreme is to find\n> and convince all the copyright holders of template/, relicense these\n> files under less restrictive license _and_ state the license clearly\n> in each of these files. I think that ought to be our long term\n> direction.\n>\n> Thanks for bringing this up.\n"}]}