Re: BK MetaData License Problem?

[Marek Habersack]

--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 03:13:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar scribbled:
>=20
> On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>=20
> > Where is the problem? This asks for a permission, not for exclusive
> > rights.
>=20
[snip]
> the commit message on the other hand is the same as eg. SuSE's PR
> announcement of SuSE Linux 20.9, it's metadata connected to their
> publishing of a GPL-ed piece of code, but it's otherwise copyright and
> owned by SuSE. The pure fact that a commit message about a GPL-ed work is
> distributed publicly does not necessarily trigger any licensing of the
> commit message itself.
Perhaps I am being silly at the moment, but wouldn't it suffice in this case
to put a statement in your commit message (I believe it can be automated)
stating that this message and the comitted data are licensed under the GPL?
As much as it would be an annoyance on the long run, it would effectively
protect every message from being abused by BitMover (or anyone else, for
that matter)*?

regards,

marek

* Note that I'm not implying BitMover or anyone else would claim ownership
  of the mentioned message - I'm just following your thread of thinking.

--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9oFs2q3909GIf5uoRAtwDAJ4t/KX3Zyj+KUNGBqPXwEy3GeNcYACdG0XF
NzPKzIcolLkfF9qLgyTcMd8=
=kra1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+--