Re: [ANNOUNCE] Java Git (aka jgit) has switched to 3-clause BSD
- From
- Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 26, 2008, 11:22 UTC
- Message-ID
- <19f34abd0805260422m6d8c414dy746623ed609440eb@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.DEB.1.00.0805261106470.30431@racer>
Hi,
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
Show 21 quoted lines
> > On Mon, 26 May 2008, Vegard Nossum wrote: > >> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote: >> > As of 53a2cc3 the jgit library (a 100% pure Java implementation >> > of git) is now licensed under a 3-clause (new-style) BSD license. >> > The change was done with a Perl script to rewrite all source code >> > headers within the org.spearce.jgit package. Copyright information >> > was updated based upon the output of git-blame. >> >> I previously read about this transition from GPL to BSD. >> >> IANAL, but isn't the current version a derivative of the older >> version, meaning that you need to take all authors into account when >> doing this switch, and not just the authors of the _current_ code? >> >> (Or did you get a consent from all previous authors as well as current >> authors?) > > He did. That is what is written in the thread that Shawn explicitely > stated in the part that you did _not_ quote.
Hm, yes, that is the thread I read before. What Shawn writes there is this:
"As of the bleeding edge (40c5c6cb11b8cc6caf3ea6a681caf0a6b8d66f36 [*4*]) the ownership of all currently surviving lines of code is broken down as follows:"
This seems to suggest that only authors of the "bleeding edge" are considered, while my point was that the "bleeding edge" may be a derivative of earlier versions which had other authors as well.
I can't find anywhere explicitly mentioned in the thread that _all_ authors have been asked about the change of license.
> I also have to wonder why you chose a total technical non-issue, that does > not really concern you (because you are noone of said authors), for your > first post (at least that I am aware of) to this list.
It does concern me, because I enjoy git and free software in general. I am not trolling or trying to stop the change of license in any way, but simply give a heads up to what I believe might potentially be a legal issue. Maybe there are in fact no other authors that have participated, but in that case I think it is a fact worthy of explicit mention.
This was also not my first post to this list; you have even replied to one of my posts yourself once upon a time :-)
Vegard
-- "The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation." -- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036