James McCoy [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
The code looks OK but the last paragraph makes _us_ worried. What
is the licensing status of the original at SO?
According to Stackoverflow[0],
As noted in the Stack Exchange Terms of Service[1] and in the footer of
every page, all user contributions are licensed under Creative Commons
Attribution-Share Alike[2]. Proper attribution[3] is required if you
republish any Stack Exchange content.
[0]: https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing
Yes, and (please correct me if I am wrong--this is one of the times
I hope I am wrong!) I thought BY-SA does not mesh well with GPLv2,
in which case we cannot use this patch (instead somebody has to
reimplement the same without copying).
Hi,
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Junio C Hamano wrote:
James McCoy [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
The code looks OK but the last paragraph makes _us_ worried. What
is the licensing status of the original at SO?
According to Stackoverflow[0],
As noted in the Stack Exchange Terms of Service[1] and in the footer of
every page, all user contributions are licensed under Creative Commons
Attribution-Share Alike[2]. Proper attribution[3] is required if you
republish any Stack Exchange content.
[0]: https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing
Yes, and (please correct me if I am wrong--this is one of the times
I hope I am wrong!) I thought BY-SA does not mesh well with GPLv2,
in which case we cannot use this patch (instead somebody has to
reimplement the same without copying).
Pat, could you please allow us to insert your SOB?
Thanks,
Dscho
Hi,
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
James McCoy [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
The code looks OK but the last paragraph makes _us_ worried. What
is the licensing status of the original at SO?
According to Stackoverflow[0],
As noted in the Stack Exchange Terms of Service[1] and in the footer of
every page, all user contributions are licensed under Creative Commons
Attribution-Share Alike[2]. Proper attribution[3] is required if you
republish any Stack Exchange content.
[0]: https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing
Yes, and (please correct me if I am wrong--this is one of the times
I hope I am wrong!) I thought BY-SA does not mesh well with GPLv2,
in which case we cannot use this patch (instead somebody has to
reimplement the same without copying).
Pat, could you please allow us to insert your SOB?
On second thought... Junio, could you please sanity-check my claim that
this patch:
-- snip --
@@ -465,6 +465,17 @@ static CURL *get_curl_handle(void)
if (curl_http_proxy) {
curl_easy_setopt(result, CURLOPT_PROXY, curl_http_proxy);
+#if LIBCURL_VERSION_NUM >= 0x071800
+ if (starts_with(curl_http_proxy, "socks5"))
+ curl_easy_setopt(result,
+ CURLOPT_PROXYTYPE, CURLPROXY_SOCKS5);
+ else if (starts_with(curl_http_proxy, "socks4a"))
+ curl_easy_setopt(result,
+ CURLOPT_PROXYTYPE, CURLPROXY_SOCKS4A);
+ else if (starts_with(curl_http_proxy, "socks"))
+ curl_easy_setopt(result,
+ CURLOPT_PROXYTYPE, CURLPROXY_SOCKS4);
+#endif
}
#if LIBCURL_VERSION_NUM >= 0x070a07
curl_easy_setopt(result, CURLOPT_PROXYAUTH, CURLAUTH_ANY);
-- snap --
cannot be copyrighted because it is pretty much the only way to implement
said functionality?
Still, Pat, if you find the time, could you please simply relicense your
patch (I know that you are fine with it, but we need an explicit
statement)?
Ciao,
Johannes