From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2010, #06; Tue, 23) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:28:51 -0500 Message-ID: <20100224062850.GA12796@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <7v635nsa37.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 24 07:29:00 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NkAjy-0002ND-K9 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:28:58 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753733Ab0BXG2y (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:28:54 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:36575 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753123Ab0BXG2x (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:28:53 -0500 Received: (qmail 29914 invoked by uid 107); 24 Feb 2010 06:29:08 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:29:08 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:28:51 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v635nsa37.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 05:20:44PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > * cw/test-lib-relicense (2010-02-22) 1 commit > . test-lib.sh: Add explicit license detail, with change from GPLv2 to GPLv2+. > > I think a reasonable way forward would be to collect Acks from > everybody who appears on "git blame" or "git shortlog" output. Somehow I am number 4 on "git shortlog -ns" for test-lib.sh, despite having contributed only a tiny number of lines. :) But certainly I am fine with re-licensing it. > How do people feel about relicensing the whole (except for the > obviously borrowed bits, such as xdiff/) under GPLv2 _or later_? I am > not a big fan of GPLv3 and do not see a compelling reason to switch to > v3 for the sake of v3 license per-se, but helping others that want to > use our code might tip the balance. I have no problem with re-licensing my contributions. -Peff