Re: [PATCH 0/2] Two janitorial patches for builtin/blame.c

From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
Date: Jan 21, 2014, 17:58 UTC
Message-ID: <87zjmpp672.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140121174448.GG18964@google.com>

Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

Show 24 quoted lines

> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> So my understanding is that when we are talking about _significant_
>> additions to builtin/blame.c (the current patches don't qualify as such
>> really) that
>>
>> a) builtin/blame.c is licensed under GPLv2
>> b) significant contributions to it will not be relicensed under
>> different licenses without the respective contributors' explicit
>> consent.
>
> Yep, that's how it works.
>
> [...]
>> The combination of the SubmittingPatches text with the file notices in
>> builtin/blame.c is not really painting a full picture of the situation.
>
> Any idea how this could be made more clear?  E.g., maybe we should
> bite the bullet and add a line to all source files that don't already
> state a license:
>
> 	/*
> 	 * License: GPLv2.  See COPYING for details.
> 	 */

Probably somewhat more verbose like "This file may be distributed under the conditions of the GPLv2. See the file COPYING for details". I think there are boilerplate texts for that.

Whatever the exact wording, that would be the cleanest way I think. The respective Documentation/SubmittingPatches text looks like it is quoted from somewhere else, so adapting it to the realities of files without clear copyright statement seems less straightforward.

-- 
David Kastrup