Re: A few contributor's questions

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 31, 2014, 18:48 UTC
Message-ID: <20140131184842.GA30398@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <87mwic2ijo.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>

Hi,

David Kastrup wrote:

> Also whether or not this implies an assignment of copyright, it is a
> reasonable assumption for

[...]

Since I think we've completely gone off the rails:

I assume the problem you're trying to solve is that files don't have clear enough notices of their licensing. That could be a real problem for people using the code, since if you no one gave you a license then you don't have a license at all. It's also a problem in that it makes it harder to interpret the phrase "under the same open source license" (though I have no idea how that could be read as "I give up my copyright completely").

The way git currently works in that area is the same as the Linux kernel:

 * the code is copyright by the authors and we try not to waste fuss
   on maintaining a comprehensive list in notices.  If you want to
   find the authors to negotiate special licensing, you get to do the
   work.

 * license is GPLv2-only where not otherwise specified

 * relicensing, when needed, happens by contacting all the copyright
   holders and getting their consent

I don't see anything weird about that. But people using the code might like clearer notices, so I personally would not mind an extra line in most files stating the license. (More than that and it becomes absurd.) That's all just my opinion --- Junio might think differently, etc.

[...]

> It's verbose and cumbersome enough that I would not have been surprised
> if there'd be an established way of getting this information on record,
> preferably per-project rather than per-commit.

For relicensing the existing practice is to just contact people. That has the advantage that I can make a decision about whether to allow relicensing code I've written in the context of how I expect it to be used. I expect that if you had a stance on GPLv2+ licensing of contributions to git published in some place easily found by search engines (for example a message on the mailing list), interested people would not have too much trouble finding it when the time comes.

Hope that helps, Jonathan