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

From: David Kastrup <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:22:42 +0100

David Kastrup <[email-masked]> writes:

> This is more a warmup than anything else: I'm actually doing a quite
> more involved rewrite of git-blame right now.  But it's been a long
> time since I sent patches for Git, so I'm starting out with something
> reasonably uncontroversial.

Ping?

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.

So it might just be that this is business as usual.  However, since
I have not been on this list for quite a while, I would want to avoid
causing large delays by some oversight.

I have not so far signed off on the patches: it would appear that this
is required.  The submission guidelines in
Documentation/SubmittingPatches state for signing off:

        (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
            have the right to submit it under the open source license
            indicated in the file; or

[...]

        (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
            are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
            personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
            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.  Instead it states

    /*
     * Blame
     *
     * Copyright (c) 2006, Junio C Hamano
     */

I do not intend my contribution to constitute a copyright assignment
(and it hardly could be one).  The top file COPYING in Git states

     Note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as this project
     is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
     v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

     HOWEVER, in order to allow a migration to GPLv3 if that seems like
     a good idea, I also ask that people involved with the project make
     their preferences known. In particular, if you trust me to make that
     decision, you might note so in your copyright message, ie something
     like

            This file is licensed under the GPL v2, or a later version
            at the discretion of Linus.

      might avoid issues. But we can also just decide to synchronize and
      contact all copyright holders on record if/when the occasion arises.

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".

So any guidance about that?

-- 
David Kastrup