From: David Kastrup Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:58:57 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Two janitorial patches for builtin/blame.c Message-ID: <87zjmpp672.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20140121174448.GG18964@google.com> Jonathan Nieder writes: > 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