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

From: Jonathan Nieder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:55:46 -0800

David Kastrup wrote:

> Now I might have sent at an unopportune time: blame.c is mostly
> attributed to Junio who seems to have been a few days absent now.
>
> I also have seen quite a few mails and patch submissions on the list go
> basically unanswered in the last few days.

In the U.S., yesterday was a federal holiday (Martin Luther King, Jr.
day) and the two days before were the weekend.

[...]
>             maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
>             this project or the open source license(s) involved.
>
> Now the file involved (builtin/blame.c) itself does not state _any_
> license.

Most of git is GPLv2-only.  (As an aside, if there's interest then I'd
be happy to see most of it change to GPLv2-or-later since that makes
it possible to link to code under the Apache License.  But I'm also
happy with the status quo.)

[...]
> As far as I am concerned, I am willing to license my work under the
> GPLv2 or any later version at the discretion of whoever wants to work
> with it.  I think that should be compatible with the project goals.
>
> Now the above passage states "you might note so in your copyright
> message", but my patches do not even contain a copyright message and it
> is not clear to me that they should, or that there is a sensible place
> to place such "copyright messages".

Yeah, since these patches aren't adding a large new chunk of code
there's no need for a new copyright notice and so no place to put that
kind of thing unless Junio wants to relicense blame (which would be
orthogonal to these patches).

Thanks and hope that helps,
Jonathan