[License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD

Henrik Ingo henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi
Wed May 22 14:21:43 UTC 2019

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 5:10 PM Brendan Hickey
<brendan.m.hickey at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019, 05:14 Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi> wrote:
>> 2. License-as-contributor-agreement - [snip] when I add code to a git repo
>> that has a BSD license, the code becomes also BSD licensed. This seems
>> to me more like a clarification for use cases such as emailing a
>> standalone patch without specifying a license.
> Does this actually happen or is this the outcome that we want? Linux uses the signed-off line in Git. On most rust repositories you'll see a language to the effect that intentionally submitted code is Apache2 licensed.

Consider this typical workflow:
- I clone a git repository to my laptop
- repository has a LICENSE file that is the BSD
- I add my own code to some files. The file headers also say the license is BSD.
- I push my repo to github

Clearly I have now published my own code under LICENSE. (Not
disagreeing that a signed-off line is better, but clearly that's a
minority of the population.)

> During discussion of the C-FSL, someone pointed out that licenses are insufficient for copyright assignment.

Correct. In above example, I have released my software under a
license, but have not assigned my copyright to anyone else.

henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi
+358-40-5697354        skype: henrik.ingo            irc: hingo

My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7

More information about the License-review mailing list