Junio C Hamano writes:
> 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
>>
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> and contrib. The README file states
>>
>> Git is an Open Source project covered by the GNU General Public
>> License version 2 (some parts of it are under different licenses,
>> compatible with the GPLv2). It was originally written
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
David Kastrup wrote:
> and contrib. The README file states
>
> Git is an Open Source project covered by the GNU General Public
> License version 2 (some parts of it are under different licenses,
> compatible with the GPLv2). It was originally written by Linus
> Torvalds with help
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Jonathan Nieder 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
David Kastrup wrote:
> The combination of the SubmittingPatches text with the file notices in
> builtin/blame.c is not really painting a full picture of the situation.
BTW, thanks for bringing this up. It last came up at [1]. Perhaps we
can do better by adding a note to README or some similar f
David Kastrup wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder 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.
>> */
>
> Prob
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
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Now I might have sent at an unopportune time: blame.c is mostly
>> attributed to Junio who seems to have been a few days absent now.
>>
>> I also have seen quite a few mails and patch submissions on the list go
>> basically unanswered in the las
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
> dif
David Kastrup wrote:
> Now I might have sent at an unopportune time: blame.c is mostly
> attributed to Junio who seems to have been a few days absent now.
>
> I also have seen quite a few mails and patch submissions on the list go
> basically unanswered in the last few days.
In the U.S., yesterda
David Kastrup writes:
> This is more a warmup than anything else: I'm actually doing a quite
> more involved rewrite of git-blame right now. But it's been a long
> time since I sent patches for Git, so I'm starting out with something
> reasonably uncontroversial.
Ping?
Now I might have sent at
This is more a warmup than anything else: I'm actually doing a quite
more involved rewrite of git-blame right now. But it's been a long
time since I sent patches for Git, so I'm starting out with something
reasonably uncontroversial. Patch 1 is a no-brainer: maintaining
reverse links is not worth
13 matches
Mail list logo
