Re: [RFC/PATCH] Git doc: GPL2 does not apply to repo data
- From
Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
- Date
- Feb 1, 2016, 10:44 UTC
- Message-ID
- <B311BDED447947CB93BF57DD8714321C@PhilipOakley>
- In-Reply-To
- <20160201081431.GA26215@sigill.intra.peff.net>
From: "Jeff King" <peff@peff.net>
Show 18 quoted lines
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 08:49:55AM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> > For less tech-savvy managers, I found that name dropping works quite >> > well >> > (read: naming a couple of well-known companies/products that switched >> > to >> > Git). >> >> In the same category: "GitHub has 12 millions users" works rather well. > > Who's to say GitHub's business plan isn't to become a copyright troll? :) > > On a more serious note, this FAQ (and the one right after) might be > useful for convincing people: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLOutput >
I'd added a link to the GPL2 faq version of that, though my link did take the reader to the contents list item.
The oddball is the templates, which could be argued are full GPL2 (see the mention of Bison in that same paragraph), and would need a further notice about their licence terms (given an insistent copyright holder!)
Show 9 quoted lines
> Data that git stores is not strictly "output", but I think the answers > there are relevant. And presumably written or vetted by lawyers, too. > > -Peff > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >