On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:41:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 06:40:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote: > > Not by my understanding. A patch will include generally include pieces > > of the kernel source, and only make sense in the context of the kernel. > > That makes it a derivative work of the kernel. > In theory, one could design a patch format that doesn't include any > context data; it wouldn't be very useful or robust, but it could be > done.
In practice, too. "diff --ed" does this. > Would the patch still be considered a DW? The patch is still > representing a DW of the kernel source. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
