On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 13:42, Joe Moore wrote: > Scott James Remnant said: > > 4. Request the patch from the revision containing the licence change to > > the HEAD. > > > > a. This patch should not include any licence changes. > > This patch is derived from the work under the new license. > (Hmm... Wouldn't this patch have to include the invariant sections?) > Ah no, this is where it gets interesting and why my advice stipulated doing this with CVS and not the "easy way"...
If *you* had simply done a diff against the two versions, yes, you'd be deriving a work from the newly licensed version and as such would have to include the complete Invariants in it. But if you take a patch from upstream, then you aren't deriving a work. Upstream possibly are, but aren't bound by their own licence so that doesn't matter. You've taken a separate work from upstream, the source of that separate work isn't important, it's a separate work. > At best, you have a work which is a result of combining two or three works: > The document v1.0 > The patch v1.0->v1.1 > The document v1.1 > No, you have a modified version of "The document v1.0", neither of the other two. You simply used "The patch v1.0->v1.1" (which was a series of instructions) without restriction as you are entitled to do to modify the document. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
