Re: Fwd: Re: [git-multimail] License unknown (#1)

On Tuesday 12 February 2013 09:01:14 Michael Haggerty wrote:

I assume you are the Andy Parkins who originally submitted
post-commit-email to the Git project...

I am indeed.  Hello.

I have derived another script from yours:

    https://github.com/mhagger/git-multimail

I affixed the GPLv2 boilerplate to the code under the assumption that it
inherited this license from the Git project.  But afterwards I realized
that I am not entirely confident that the GPLv2 applies to
post-commit-email.

I'm sorry, that's entirely my fault.  I had read somewhere in the git 
submission policy that everything submitted was naturally under the same 
license as git itself.
 

Obviously the situation is even more complicated because other people
have contributed patches to the script since your original submission.
But it would nevertheless be very helpful if you would clarify your
original intention, *especially* if your intention was to put the script
under a license different than GPLv2.

My intention was to put my code under exactly the license the git itself is 
under.  I am delighted for you or anyone else to use or derive from it.

I'm also sorry I didn't respond to your first email, it accidentally got 
sorted into spam.

If anyone wants some sort of legal declaration, I'm happy to give it.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [git-multimail] License unknown (#1)
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:52:58 +0100
From: Michael Haggerty <redacted>
To: git discussion list <redacted>,  Andy Parkins
[off-list ref]
CC: mhagger/git-multimail
<reply+i-10159725-60cb2c338c594bd09d77fe2f8d628aa55114a3f6-119718@reply.git
hub.com>, Michiel Holtkamp [off-list ref]

I have a question about the license of contrib/hooks/post-commit-email.
 I had assumed that since it is in the git project, which is GPLv2, and
since it contains no contrary information, it would by implication also
fall under GPLv2.  But the file itself contains no explicit license
information, and it is not clear to me that the "signed-off-by" line
implies a particular license, either.  (The signed-off-by *does* seem to
imply that the source code is under some kind of open source license,
but not which one.)

If somebody can explain what license the code is under and how they come
to that conclusion, I would be very grateful.

And if Andy Parkins (the original author) is listening, please indicate
whether you had any intent *other* than GPLv2.

For anybody who is interested, the file was first committed in
4557e0de5b and has been modified by several authors since then.

Given the pretty clear open-sourciness of the script, I don't think this
has to be made into a big issue.  But it would be nice to state the
license explicitly for future users' information.

Thanks,
Michael

On 01/27/2013 02:38 PM, Michiel Holtkamp wrote:

quoted

Actually, I'm not sure that it is GPLv2 for the original script. The
COPYING file in the main project declares the project as GPLv2, but it
also says that people contributing should make their preferences (for
licensing) known. Maybe we can assume it's GPLv2, (as the original
writer might have assumed it was GPLv2), but it's not explicitly stated
so I'm not sure (IANAL).

-- 
Dr Andy Parkins
Director
FussyLogic Ltd

tel:  0845 557 7645

web:  www.fussylogic.co.uk

Company Registration No. 8198285      Registered in England and Wales

  This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are
  intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed.
  Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do
  not necessarily represent those of FussyLogic Ltd.

  If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither
  take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to
  anyone.
  
  Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email
  in error.