[nanomsg] Re: MIT Licensing

  • From: zerotacg <zero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 22:04:22 +0200

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
> 
>>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 


Other related posts: