Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> 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
> 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.
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