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? Tobias On 30.05.2014 18:33, Martin Sustrik wrote: > I quite like the linux kernel model. You have a developers' agreement > somewhere on the web and individual contributors sign the patches off > when committing to git: > > git commit -s > > Easy and efficient. > > Would people on the list prefer this model? > > Martin > > On 30/05/14 18:24, John D. Mitchell wrote: >> That's pretty iffy. Much better to have explicit contributor >> agreements for each person. > >> Cheers, John > >> On May 30, 2014, at 07:33 , Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: > >>> It doesn't. But if the existing file is licensed under MIT and >>> no new notice is placed with the copyright addition then I think >>> the common convention is to assume that the new changes are >>> licensed under the same existing license. Now changing the >>> license would be a different matter and in that case a new notice >>> in the file would be needed. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On May 30, 2014, at 12:19 AM, Martin Sustrik >>>> <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >> Hi Garrett, > >>>>>> Well, I'm not the package maintainers. But for those >>>>>> packages that I do maintain (illumos, mangos, etc.) I ask >>>>>> that contributors update the copyright statements in the >>>>>> files that they are updating as part of their patch >>>>>> submission. > >> Are you sure it works that way? I am not a lawyer, but my feeling >> is that claiming a copyright on the file doesn't necessarily mean >> you are providing your patched under the MIT license... > >> Martin > >>>> >>> > > > >