Re: [RFC] clarify licensing terms for .git/hooks/*.sample files

[Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com>]

On 07/02/22 12:21 pm, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> When a new repository is created by end-user, the template material
> are copied from /usr/share/git-core/templates directory, including
> sample hook scripts.
> 
> As the source code of Git itself is licensed under GPL-2.0, by
> default, these come under the same license.  Some end-users may
> worry that this might "contaminate" their project's licensing
> status.
> 
> Let's add some text to clarify _our_ intention.
> 
> What is added is merely a draft for discussion.  The commit
> references and author idents point at the right commits and people
> whose input matters in today's contents of each file and we'll have
> to contact them and have them agree what license they want to have
> the current contents of the file under.
> 

FWIW, this does sound like a good thing to do.

> I am contemplating to relicense all my work under templates/hooks--*
> under either MIT or BSD-3-Clause, but some sample hooks do not have
> my input and the choice of course will be up to their authors.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> ---
> 
>   cf. https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqbl07mrp3.fsf@gitster.g/
> 
>   templates/hooks--LICENSE | 256 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 256 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 templates/hooks--LICENSE
> 
> diff --git a/templates/hooks--LICENSE b/templates/hooks--LICENSE
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..f6834f312b
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/templates/hooks--LICENSE
> @@ -0,0 +1,256 @@
> +The *.sample hook scripts installed in this repository have been
> +copied from Git source code by "git init".  Because Git itself as a
> +whole is licensed under the GPL-2.0 license [*1*], some people have
> +raised concerns if these scripts somehow contaminate the contents
> +developed by the end users and stored in their repository.
> +
> +While we, Git developers, are not your lawyers, we believe the
> +presence of these sample hook scripts in your repository does not
> +constitute "distribution" that makes the contents tracked in your
> +repository governed also under the same license as ours, but it would
> +be a good idea to clarify that
> +
> + * We do not intend to spread the license of Git to your contents by
> +   copying the sample hook scripts.
> +
> + * These sample hook scripts may be under licenses other than GPL-2.0.
> +
> +The list below describes under which open-source license each sample
> +hook script is licensed.
> +

The above seems to read well to me.

> +----
> +
> +NEEDSWORK:
> +
> +Below are draft entries that do show correct commit object names that
> +matter to, or contributors who write, the surviving contents of the
> +file, but these people haven't been asked to do anything yet (hence
> +they haven't responded yet, of course), so they do not show what the
> +licensing status of these files will be at the end of this exercise
> +yet.
> +
> +What I am hoping to achieve is to replace the text under each bullet
> +point to document who the authors/copyright holders are of the file,
> +and under what license the copy given to each end-user repository is
> +usable by the end-user.  It would be more useful if the license chosen
> +(which can be different per file) is more lenient than strict.
> +
> +----

> [ ... snip ...]

> +
> +* prepare-commit-msg.sample
> +
> +    Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com>
> +    b22a3079466b72e8a8b76065d6c28efe7eea4b16 (clean-up)
> +

For my part, I would be fine if we license contents of prepare-commit-msg.sample
under the MIT license.

-- 
Sivaraam