On 07/02/22 12:21 pm, Junio C Hamano wrote:
When a new repository is created by end-user, the template material are copied from /usr/share/git-core/templates directory, including sample hook scripts. As the source code of Git itself is licensed under GPL-2.0, by default, these come under the same license. Some end-users may worry that this might "contaminate" their project's licensing status. Let's add some text to clarify _our_ intention. What is added is merely a draft for discussion. The commit references and author idents point at the right commits and people whose input matters in today's contents of each file and we'll have to contact them and have them agree what license they want to have the current contents of the file under.
FWIW, this does sound like a good thing to do.
I am contemplating to relicense all my work under templates/hooks--* under either MIT or BSD-3-Clause, but some sample hooks do not have my input and the choice of course will be up to their authors. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> --- cf. https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqbl07mrp3.fsf@gitster.g/ templates/hooks--LICENSE | 256 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 256 insertions(+) create mode 100644 templates/hooks--LICENSE diff --git a/templates/hooks--LICENSE b/templates/hooks--LICENSE new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..f6834f312b --- /dev/null +++ b/templates/hooks--LICENSE @@ -0,0 +1,256 @@ +The *.sample hook scripts installed in this repository have been +copied from Git source code by "git init". Because Git itself as a +whole is licensed under the GPL-2.0 license [*1*], some people have +raised concerns if these scripts somehow contaminate the contents +developed by the end users and stored in their repository. + +While we, Git developers, are not your lawyers, we believe the +presence of these sample hook scripts in your repository does not +constitute "distribution" that makes the contents tracked in your +repository governed also under the same license as ours, but it would +be a good idea to clarify that + + * We do not intend to spread the license of Git to your contents by + copying the sample hook scripts. + + * These sample hook scripts may be under licenses other than GPL-2.0. + +The list below describes under which open-source license each sample +hook script is licensed. +
The above seems to read well to me.
+---- + +NEEDSWORK: + +Below are draft entries that do show correct commit object names that +matter to, or contributors who write, the surviving contents of the +file, but these people haven't been asked to do anything yet (hence +they haven't responded yet, of course), so they do not show what the +licensing status of these files will be at the end of this exercise +yet. + +What I am hoping to achieve is to replace the text under each bullet +point to document who the authors/copyright holders are of the file, +and under what license the copy given to each end-user repository is +usable by the end-user. It would be more useful if the license chosen +(which can be different per file) is more lenient than strict. + +----
[ ... snip ...]
+ +* prepare-commit-msg.sample + + Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@xxxxxxxxx> + b22a3079466b72e8a8b76065d6c28efe7eea4b16 (clean-up) +
For my part, I would be fine if we license contents of prepare-commit-msg.sample under the MIT license. -- Sivaraam
