git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: GPL v2 authoritative answer on stored code as a derived work

From
Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date
Jan 27, 2016, 19:12 UTC
Message-ID
<C0429EC95C2F44528E2A1336FB7A2D98@PhilipOakley>
In-Reply-To
<xmqqzivtfphe.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
Show 5 quoted lines
> Jonathan Smith <Jonathan.Smith@fphcare.co.nz> writes:
>
>> It's pretty clear that code stored in a Git repository isn't
>> considered a derived work of Git, regardless of whether it is used
>> in a commercial context or otherwise.

I'm guessing here, but I suspect that while its 'pretty clear' to Jonathan, that he has met others who aren't so clear or trusting, and it's that distrustful community that would need convincing.

>>
>> However, I'm unable to find this stated in any authoritative and
>> unambiguous manner.

The GPL2 FAQ's (search for 'data') http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#TOCGPLOutput (should link to "Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that these designs must be free?") and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL both cover the fact that the repo (data) is not a derived work, and thus not subject to GPL2.

>
> Is it reasonable to ask for such a statement?  I doubt it,
> especially if "It's pretty clear".

(Rhet) If there were to be such a statement, where should it be placed, and who could issue it? It couldn't be part of the COPYING licence file (because it's not supposed to be modified).

It could be in the User Manual, but that wouldn't carry much weight with the already worried, or perhaps the git(1) man page [E.g. 'discusssion' section maybe], or even in the git-scm.com 'book', but really it would need Jonathan (and others with similar FUD issues) to suggest what they'd need.

>
> Without such a statement, I think we have already seen that the
> commercial adoption is already appealing.
>

Hopefully the links can help Jonathan if he is having any local difficulties.

-- Philip

Previous: Junio C HamanoNext: Johannes Schindelin
Message 3 of 15 in “GPL v2 authoritative answer on stored code as a derived work”
  1. Jonathan SmithJan 25, 2016
  2. Junio C HamanoJan 25, 2016
  3. Philip OakleyJan 27, 2016
  4. Johannes SchindelinJan 28, 2016
  5. Philip OakleyJan 31, 2016
  6. Git doc: GPL2 does not apply to repo dataPhilip Oakley, Jan 31, 2016
  7. Junio C HamanoJan 31, 2016
  8. Jonathan SmithJan 31, 2016
  9. Johannes SchindelinFeb 1, 2016
  10. Matthieu MoyFeb 1, 2016
  11. Jeff KingFeb 1, 2016
  12. Jeff KingFeb 1, 2016
  13. Philip OakleyFeb 1, 2016
  14. Philip OakleyFeb 1, 2016
  15. Philip OakleyFeb 1, 2016

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.