From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
Jonathan Smith <Jonathan.Smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
It's pretty clear that code stored in a Git repository isn't
considered a derived work of Git, regardless of whether it is used
in a commercial context or otherwise.
I'm guessing here, but I suspect that while its 'pretty clear' to Jonathan,
that he has met others who aren't so clear or trusting, and it's that
distrustful community that would need convincing.
However, I'm unable to find this stated in any authoritative and
unambiguous manner.
The GPL2 FAQ's (search for 'data')
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#TOCGPLOutput
(should link to "Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from
use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware
designs, can I require that these designs must be free?") and
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
both cover the fact that the repo (data) is not a derived work, and thus not
subject to GPL2.
Is it reasonable to ask for such a statement? I doubt it,
especially if "It's pretty clear".
(Rhet) If there were to be such a statement, where should it be placed, and
who could issue it? It couldn't be part of the COPYING licence file (because
it's not supposed to be modified).
It could be in the User Manual, but that wouldn't carry much weight with the
already worried, or perhaps the git(1) man page [E.g. 'discusssion' section
maybe], or even in the git-scm.com 'book', but really it would need Jonathan
(and others with similar FUD issues) to suggest what they'd need.
Without such a statement, I think we have already seen that the
commercial adoption is already appealing.
Hopefully the links can help Jonathan if he is having any local
difficulties.
--
Philip
--
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