On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> But there is no Copyright license in patch code.
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> I was under the understanding a "patch" to something GPL, means
> the "patch" is also GPL.
when IBM started working with the apache group their lawyers did a bunch
of studying of various licenses and worked out a system by which their
folks could contribute code. one of the things their folks do is
explicitly release every patch under the apache license -- just to be
sure. they tend to explicitly include the release boilerplate along with
the patch mail message... but they did mention that the method that i've
been using for years is probably fine as well, although somewhat weaker.
look in my message headers and you'll see i point folks at
<http://arctic.org/~dean/legal>, and one of the clauses in there
explicitly puts any patch/docs/etc. i send in a message under the same
license as the software it's intended to support.
explicit notices are much better for legal purposes. although just by
posting you never give up your copyright -- you have to do that explicitly
(i explicitly listed public domain because it's a blanket "i give up my
rights" when you do that). linus or anyone taking your patches and
putting them into the kernel without your explicit release is weaker
legally than if you put a notice in your messages.
you can expect all these issues to come up the first time the GPL is
challenged in court.
IANAL.
-dean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:23 EST