Re: Dangling copyright in git hook template

[Frederic Tessier <ftessier@gmail.com>]

Hi,

Thank you for the quick response! My approach on this was that the
line tripped the licence analysis for our organization projects, but
you are entirely right: removing the line does not change anything, as
the copyright notice is optional (I did not know that was true
globally, thanks for pointing that out).

It would be great if the samples were explicitly under MIT licence or
other permissive option. In the short term, perhaps do not copy the
templates by default, or make that a git config option, or else not
copy the templates when running `git clone`?

I realize this is not a big deal, especially since it is unlikely
someone would distribute files in .git by mistake. However, upon
cloning my repo, someone could be under the *impression* that I am
violating copyright since it appears in the repo; alas, my employer
(government) is a stickler when it comes to managing copyright! :-)

At any rate, minor point, but thanks for listening, and for taking the
time to reply. Much appreciated.

Regards,
Frédéric.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 14:49, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Frederic Tessier <ftessier@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > What did you expect to happen? (Expected behavior)
> > New repo initialized containing no copyright claims
> >
> > What happened instead? (Actual behavior)
> > New repo initialized with a copyright claim in .git/hooks/pre-rebase.sample:
> > # Copyright (c) 2006, 2008 Junio C Hamano
>
> Because the sample files are copied verbatim, with or without such
> copyright notice message, they are copyrighted by their respective
> copyright holders.  And their modification and distribution should
> follow the same licensing terms (i.e. GPLv2) as our source files.
>
> Removing that single line would not change anything, as these days
> the written copyright notice is optional across the globe.
>
> We could probably stop shipping these .sample hook files, or the
> users can ignore them with the same ease.
>
> I dunno.  An alternative position on the other extreme is to find
> and convince all the copyright holders of template/, relicense these
> files under less restrictive license _and_ state the license clearly
> in each of these files.  I think that ought to be our long term
> direction.
>
> Thanks for bringing this up.