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 >> 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
