Patches have a license
Looking at the recent posting on lkml, I find that a lot of people tend to take and apply patches posted on lkml into proprietary modules.
I would request everyone to post their patches with a license, failing which it should be assumed that the license is GPL.
People picking up patches, please ensure that if you are going to release only the binary of your module, then please do not pick up code from lkml and put it into your modules, unless you agree with the license.
If what I have said is not agreeable, please come up with a license for patches. This will keep confusion to the minimum.
Comments,
Balbir
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Quoted 3 lines · Balbir Singh
I would request everyone to post their patches with a license, failing which it should be assumed that the license is GPL.
Surely the license of the diff matches the license of the code it is patching ?
Dave
Signature · 1 line
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
I would request everyone to post their patches with a license, failing which it should be assumed that the license is GPL.
Surely the license of the diff matches the license of the code it is patching ?
That is what I've always thought. However, in any case, even if the patch itself isn't explicitly licensed as GPL, the code generated as a result of patching a GPLed piece of code, must surely be GPLed, because applying the patch is no different to editing the file with a text editor.
John.
commence Dave Jones quotation:
Quoted 6 lines · Balbir Singh
Quoted 2 lines
I would request everyone to post their patches with a license, failing which it should be assumed that the license is GPL.
Surely the license of the diff matches the license of the code it is patching ?
I'm not sure that it would *have* to. A diff could be considered a program in its own right that drives the "patch" source code transformation engine. In general, programs that process free data don't have to be free themselves for the data to remain free.
Signature · 4 lines
/ | [|] Sean Neakums | Size *does* matter. [|] <[email protected]> | That's why I use Emacs. \ |
Quoted 7 lines · Dave Jones
Quoted 3 lines · Balbir Singh
I would request everyone to post their patches with a license, failing which it should be assumed that the license is GPL.
Surely the license of the diff matches the license of the code it is patching ?
NO!
Insert a random amount of comments or linefeeds and hand edit the patch to conform on a --dry-run and it does not mate.
Remember "patch" is only a series of offsets and comparison. There is no checksum against the file to be patched.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
Quoted 8 lines · Dave Jones
Quoted 3 lines · Balbir Singh
I would request everyone to post their patches with a license, failing which it should be assumed that the license is GPL.
Surely the license of the diff matches the license of the code it is patching ?
Usually in practice, but not necessarily. Try diff'ing two files with different licence, then go apply it at some file with a third licence. :-/
Helge Hafting
Quoted 7 lines · Dave Jones
Quoted 3 lines · Balbir Singh
I would request everyone to post their patches with a license, failing which it should be assumed that the license is GPL.
Surely the license of the diff matches the license of the code it is patching ?
no... actually the diff poster retains their own copyright on the diff unless they specify otherwise. so not only would folks using them in proprietary code would have to ask your permission to use the patch, but so should linus request you to release it under GPL.
although it's somewhat tongue in cheek, check the url i include on all messages i send -- <http://arctic.org/~dean/legal>.
i'm not sure if they still do it, but when IBM started contributing to the apache project, every patch they posted included a disclaimer and release under the apache license.
also FSF requires a release form on file from you to accept any patch. (i've also got a form on file with the ASF which i think formalises this copyright issue for core group members.)
in the end i'm sure you could argue your intent was clear and implicit, but some folks prefer to be explicit.
-dean
Quoted 3 lines · Balbir Singh
Looking at the recent posting on lkml, I find that a lot of people tend to take and apply patches posted on lkml into proprietary modules.
There are two ways to look at a patch on a public mailing list such as LKML - either it is a public publication without restriction, or it is a derived work of a copyrighted work, where the copyright on that work explicitly covers derived works. I'm not going to argue which since that's the domain of legal people to sort out, and one that I'm not particularly interested in.
However, basic common sense suggests that if a patch author wants to ensure that patches are not used in a way that they do not intend them to be used, then the patch author should explicitly state the license that they supply the patches under.
Signature · 2 lines
Russell King ([email protected]) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
Does not matter!
The copyright can only protect the actual file. The ideas expressed inside the file are not protectable, unless patents are involved.
It only matters if one can prove it is a derived work. Otherwise, it is a combined work and GPL does not cover "combination" works.
Quoted 12 lines · Russell King
Quoted 3 lines · Balbir Singh
Looking at the recent posting on lkml, I find that a lot of people tend to take and apply patches posted on lkml into proprietary modules.
There are two ways to look at a patch on a public mailing list such as LKML - either it is a public publication without restriction, or it is a derived work of a copyrighted work, where the copyright on that work explicitly covers derived works. I'm not going to argue which since that's the domain of legal people to sort out, and one that I'm not particularly interested in.
Quoted 15 lines
However, basic common sense suggests that if a patch author wants to ensure that patches are not used in a way that they do not intend them to be used, then the patch author should explicitly state the license that they supply the patches under.
Signature · 8 lines
Russell King ([email protected]) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group