Stefan Beller <stefanbel...@gmail.com> writes: > To spin this further it would be interesting to have > a server advertisement during git clone which indicates > if this setting is recommended to be set. > Then hosting sites popular in the open source world such as > github could enable this feature, and the client may enable > this for the currently cloned repository (the user may have > a global setting set to suppress this message though). > > At $work the default of not advertising checking for such a > feature would be set.
Hmm. An open source hosting site can help better by checking at the project creation time, because the people who interact with that interface are solely in the position to set and publish licensing terms. The general consumer who are cloning and fetching do not have direct control over this, and the only thing the could do to nudge the publishers is with an out-of-line communication, e.g. sending e-mails telling the publisher "I am interested in using your ware, but you do not have licensing terms described, which makes me wary; please improve". An approach that checks only the top-level directory for fixed filename pattern would not be an effective way to protect the cloners, either. I am personally not interested in the patch under discussion, with or without "please be quiet" configuration. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
