Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

FWIW, I don't see anything wrong with stripping the git history. I think it's stupid and short-sighted, but whatever, it's allowed. One use case I've seen, sometimes you want to pull a single file from another project without a bunch of baggage.

Your license should cover the history, in that every source file should bear a license header, going back to the first commit.



> Your license should cover the history, in that every source file should bear a license header, going back to the first commit.

This is one way to do it. Problem remains when these important parts, even whole files - e.g. COPYRIGHT - are removed from the archived copy.

From what the original author reports, this is what happened.


I fully agree with that. Stripping licenses is a Bad Thing™.

When I've imported foreign files from other projects that don't have license headers, I give them license headers and also append their LICENSE or COPYRIGHT file into mine; I like belts and suspenders.

Removing history, itself, is not especially problematic. History is for maintenance, merges, and downstream compatibility issues.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: