Tag Info

The GPL does not forbid you from using GPL'ed software. It requires something far more specific: if you modify the GPL'ed software and publish your modifications, then you can only publish under the terms of the GPL. The question here is whether some use of Git would count as modification, and whether it counts as publishing. Different GPL versions ...

One useful way of handling long-term contributions from a fork could be: Never touch master. On your fork, master reflects the status on the main project. First, configure an upstream remote on your machine to the original project. You can do so by running git remote add upstream https://github.com/ORIGINAL_OWNER/ORIGINAL_REPOSITORY.git (You need to do this ...

As far as I can tell, the GPL does not require you to indicate what specific changes you make to a GPL-licensed work. The GPLv3 says The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date. And the GPLv2 says: You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the ...

Whilst IANAL/IANYL, and no developer, it seems to me that the question boils down to "is it a licence violation to offer a repository from which someone could, with some effort, extract a non-licence-compliant subset of the code"? I would argue that it isn't. With enough care, it's possible to extract a non-compliant version of code from most repositories. ...

You aren't using git branches correctly. Essentially, you should create a branch each time you want to submit a PR, make all the changes on that branch (could be more than one patch) and push it from there. Once the PR is accepted, you should rebase your master branch from the upstream master, and when you have another idea you want to contribute, make sure ...

This might be technically be a case of copyright infringement, however: you acted in good faith you already corrected the license violation you never pushed a HEAD that was in violation Personally, I would have squashed or rebased the commits before pushing, but that is a minor point. It could be argued that your fixed Git repository does contain the ...

The git repository as all information, so also the correct one. IANAL, and more practical: I would make sure that all tags and publish branches will have the correct license. I would amend the source archives (tar.gz and similar) so that they have correct license (but probably I will keep the original file in a new place, with a README which tell about the ...

The man pages of Git are under the same license as Git, e.g. GPL 2.0 (and v2.0 only: this is the same as the Linux kernel license)

I would use a separate branch that mirrors exactly the head branch of the SVN repository, besides a master branch that contains the latest release of your fork and any other branches (feature, release, etc.) that are indicated by your preferred branching strategy. When there is an update from the upstream project, you initially put that in the "upstream" ...

Each commit in git history is a legally distinct entity, and is licensed according to the LICENSE file that existed at that point in history. As an author, you have the right to change the license of your project at any time. So, if commit X switches the project's license from no-license to MIT, then any user has the right to use the project from point X ...

Here are the steps you need to do to get a clean, nice pull request. I generally suggest this workflow to people with less previous exposure to git. You could make a rebase on auth repo master, but this might lead to non-trivial merging, depending on the delta. Therefore: Do not delete your fork. That was bad advice in the comments. Fetch the latest master ...

With respect to the other answers, I disagree with them. You have developed some code, which you have released under a non-copyleft free licence; let's pick BSD 3-clause (BSD3). The choice doesn't affect the answer all that much, but it's easier than dealing with a list of possible licences. At some point in the development of your project, you have ...