[nanomsg] Re: MIT Licensing
- From: zerotacg <zero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 23:12:18 +0200
I see, so basically you state somewhere that we can agree to the license
by adding the "magic words" "Signed off ..." in the commit log kind of
btw when cloning the repo we also clone the copyright/license notice and
rehost it on github. wouldn't that make the clone also the same license?
I mean if we fork and don't explicitly delete the license the fork has a
note stating it is under license xyz?
Tobias
On 30.05.2014 22:36, Martin Sustrik wrote:
> On 30/05/14 22:04, zerotacg wrote:
>> I'm relatively new to git, what does that actually mean? I see that
>> it adds a "Signed off by ..." to the commit but how does that solve
>> the need of the patch license?
>
> See here:
>
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
>
> Pt. 12
>
> Martin
>
>
Other related posts:
