Re: [git-multimail] License unknown (#1)
- From
- Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 12, 2013, 15:28 UTC
- Message-ID
- <201302121528.07961.andyparkins@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <5105778A.1040401@alum.mit.edu>
On Sunday 27 January 2013 18:52:58 Michael Haggerty wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> I have a question about the license of contrib/hooks/post-commit-email. > I had assumed that since it is in the git project, which is GPLv2, and > since it contains no contrary information, it would by implication also > fall under GPLv2. But the file itself contains no explicit license > information, and it is not clear to me that the "signed-off-by" line > implies a particular license, either. (The signed-off-by *does* seem to > imply that the source code is under some kind of open source license, > but not which one.)
Keeping up with the git mailing list got a bit much, but my original filters to sort messages from it into a (now hidden) folder where still in place. Michael contacted me independently, which was enough of a prod to see this.
My apologies to everyone; I've been lax supporting the script -- I never really expected it to be as widely used as it has been, I was always expecting someone would come along and replace it so I'm pleased that Michael has done so (although it's a little disheartening to read of it being called "hacky", when I tried very hard to make it as clear and modular as I could).
Show 5 quoted lines
> If somebody can explain what license the code is under and how they come > to that conclusion, I would be very grateful. > > And if Andy Parkins (the original author) is listening, please indicate > whether you had any intent *other* than GPLv2.
I intended it to be under the same license as Git. I had read in one of the patch submission files (which I can't seem to find now) that all submissions were considered part of git.
> For anybody who is interested, the file was first committed in > 4557e0de5b and has been modified by several authors since then.
I haven't looked at it for a long time. I can't speak for the other authors, but for any part of it that is still mine -- anyone is free to do anything they wish with it.
> Given the pretty clear open-sourciness of the script, I don't think this > has to be made into a big issue. But it would be nice to state the > license explicitly for future users' information.
If an explicit declaration is needed, I am happy to give it. Let me know what form this should take and I'll supply it.
Andy
-- Dr Andy Parkins andyparkins@gmail.com