Jonathan Nieder <> 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
>> consent.
> 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.

David Kastrup

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to