Re: [PATCH 0/2] Two janitorial patches for builtin/blame.c

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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.
	 */
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]