License unknown (#1)
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): mhagger/git-multimail/issues/[email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): mhagger/git-multimail/issues/1/[email protected]
I have a question about the license of contrib/hooks/post-commit-email.
I had assumed that since it is in the git project, which is GPLv2, and
since it contains no contrary information, it would by implication also fall under GPLv2. But the file itself contains no explicit license information, and it is not clear to me that the "signed-off-by" line implies a particular license, either. (The signed-off-by *does* seem to imply that the source code is under some kind of open source license, but not which one.)
If somebody can explain what license the code is under and how they come to that conclusion, I would be very grateful.
And if Andy Parkins (the original author) is listening, please indicate whether you had any intent *other* than GPLv2.
For anybody who is interested, the file was first committed in 4557e0de5b and has been modified by several authors since then.
Given the pretty clear open-sourciness of the script, I don't think this has to be made into a big issue. But it would be nice to state the license explicitly for future users' information.
Thanks,
Michael
Quoted 6 lines · Michiel Holtkamp
Actually, I'm not sure that it is GPLv2 for the original script. The COPYING file in the main project declares the project as GPLv2, but it also says that people contributing should make their preferences (for licensing) known. Maybe we can assume it's GPLv2, (as the original writer might have assumed it was GPLv2), but it's not explicitly stated so I'm not sure (IANAL).
Signature · 3 lines
Michael Haggerty [email protected] http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
Quoted 8 lines · On Sunday 27 January 2013 18:52:58 Michael Haggerty wrote:
I have a question about the license of contrib/hooks/post-commit-email.
I had assumed that since it is in the git project, which is GPLv2, and
since it contains no contrary information, it would by implication also fall under GPLv2. But the file itself contains no explicit license information, and it is not clear to me that the "signed-off-by" line implies a particular license, either. (The signed-off-by *does* seem to imply that the source code is under some kind of open source license, but not which one.)
Keeping up with the git mailing list got a bit much, but my original filters to sort messages from it into a (now hidden) folder where still in place. Michael contacted me independently, which was enough of a prod to see this.
My apologies to everyone; I've been lax supporting the script -- I never really expected it to be as widely used as it has been, I was always expecting someone would come along and replace it so I'm pleased that Michael has done so (although it's a little disheartening to read of it being called "hacky", when I tried very hard to make it as clear and modular as I could).
Quoted 5 lines
If somebody can explain what license the code is under and how they come to that conclusion, I would be very grateful.
And if Andy Parkins (the original author) is listening, please indicate whether you had any intent *other* than GPLv2.
I intended it to be under the same license as Git. I had read in one of the patch submission files (which I can't seem to find now) that all submissions were considered part of git.
Quoted 2 lines
For anybody who is interested, the file was first committed in
4557e0de5band has been modified by several authors since then.
I haven't looked at it for a long time. I can't speak for the other authors, but for any part of it that is still mine -- anyone is free to do anything they wish with it.
Quoted 3 lines
Given the pretty clear open-sourciness of the script, I don't think this has to be made into a big issue. But it would be nice to state the license explicitly for future users' information.
If an explicit declaration is needed, I am happy to give it. Let me know what form this should take and I'll supply it.
Andy
Signature · 2 lines
Dr Andy Parkins [email protected]
Quoted 5 lines · Andy Parkins
Quoted 2 lines · On Sunday 27 January 2013 18:52:58 Michael Haggerty wrote:
I have a question about the license of contrib/hooks/post-commit-email. [...]
Keeping up with the git mailing list got a bit much, [...]
Very understandable :-)
Quoted 5 lines
My apologies to everyone; I've been lax supporting the script -- I never really expected it to be as widely used as it has been, I was always expecting someone would come along and replace it so I'm pleased that Michael has done so (although it's a little disheartening to read of it being called "hacky", when I tried very hard to make it as clear and modular as I could).
FWIW I think the script was quite well-structured (within the limitations of shell scripting anyway) and I had no problem understanding it and translating it to Python.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 5 lines
If somebody can explain what license the code is under and how they come to that conclusion, I would be very grateful.
And if Andy Parkins (the original author) is listening, please indicate whether you had any intent *other* than GPLv2.
I intended it to be under the same license as Git. I had read in one of the patch submission files (which I can't seem to find now) that all submissions were considered part of git.
Thanks. Given that you submitted the original version under GPLv2, and later contributors certainly had no reason to assume any *other* license, I think any reasonable person will be satisfied that the whole script in its current form is under GPLv2.
Quoted 2 lines
If an explicit declaration is needed, I am happy to give it. Let me know what form this should take and I'll supply it.
Personally, I am satisfied by your email statement. I will leave the derived work, git-multimail, also under GPLv2. Assuming that git-multimail supersedes yours, its explicit choice of license will make the situation clear for future users.
Thanks!
Michael
Signature · 3 lines
Michael Haggerty [email protected] http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 2 lines · On Tuesday 12 February 2013 09:01:14 Michael Haggerty wrote:
I assume you are the Andy Parkins who originally submitted post-commit-email to the Git project...
I am indeed. Hello.
Quoted 8 lines
I have derived another script from yours:
https://github.com/mhagger/git-multimail
I affixed the GPLv2 boilerplate to the code under the assumption that it inherited this license from the Git project. But afterwards I realized that I am not entirely confident that the GPLv2 applies to post-commit-email.
I'm sorry, that's entirely my fault. I had read somewhere in the git submission policy that everything submitted was naturally under the same license as git itself.
Quoted 5 lines
Obviously the situation is even more complicated because other people have contributed patches to the script since your original submission. But it would nevertheless be very helpful if you would clarify your original intention, *especially* if your intention was to put the script under a license different than GPLv2.
My intention was to put my code under exactly the license the git itself is under. I am delighted for you or anyone else to use or derive from it.
I'm also sorry I didn't respond to your first email, it accidentally got sorted into spam.
If anyone wants some sort of legal declaration, I'm happy to give it.
Quoted 42 lines
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [git-multimail] License unknown (#1)
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:52:58 +0100
From: Michael Haggerty <[email protected]>
To: git discussion list <[email protected]>, Andy Parkins <[email protected]>
CC: mhagger/git-multimail <reply+i-10159725-60cb2c338c594bd09d77fe2f8d628aa55114a3f6-119718@reply.git hub.com>, Michiel Holtkamp <[email protected]>I have a question about the license of contrib/hooks/post-commit-email.
I had assumed that since it is in the git project, which is GPLv2, and
since it contains no contrary information, it would by implication also fall under GPLv2. But the file itself contains no explicit license information, and it is not clear to me that the "signed-off-by" line implies a particular license, either. (The signed-off-by *does* seem to imply that the source code is under some kind of open source license, but not which one.)If somebody can explain what license the code is under and how they come to that conclusion, I would be very grateful.
And if Andy Parkins (the original author) is listening, please indicate whether you had any intent *other* than GPLv2.
For anybody who is interested, the file was first committed in
4557e0de5band has been modified by several authors since then.Given the pretty clear open-sourciness of the script, I don't think this has to be made into a big issue. But it would be nice to state the license explicitly for future users' information.
Thanks,
MichaelQuoted 6 lines · Michiel Holtkamp
Actually, I'm not sure that it is GPLv2 for the original script. The COPYING file in the main project declares the project as GPLv2, but it also says that people contributing should make their preferences (for licensing) known. Maybe we can assume it's GPLv2, (as the original writer might have assumed it was GPLv2), but it's not explicitly stated so I'm not sure (IANAL).
Signature · 21 lines
Dr Andy Parkins Director FussyLogic Ltd tel: 0845 557 7645 web: www.fussylogic.co.uk Company Registration No. 8198285 Registered in England and Wales This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of FussyLogic Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.