David Kastrup wrote: > Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes:
>> 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. All else being equal, longer is worse. > 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. Hm, the wording comes from the Linux kernel project, where it's also pretty normal not to have a license notice in every file (and where the default license is also GPLv2). Is the problem the phrase "indicated in the file", or is the problem e.g. the lack of a pointer to https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/blob/development/git.git-authors? Jonathan -- 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
