On 7/22/05, Henrik S. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I think everyone would agree that patches have the same copyright as > > the files that they patch, with exception to new files, and unless > > otherwise stated. If a patch creates a new file it is the > > responsability of the author of that file to copyright it, otherwise > > it is 'all rights reserved' by default. Patches can also have > > copyrights for portions of code... like a function or paragraph > > might be quoted from another source, and so the patched file would > > have a dual copyright. > > These issues are a good reason to have an explicit policy on this > matter. For example, the patch for mktemp creates the script file > `maketemp', which does not have a copyright or license notice. In my > mind, this can mean one of three things: > > 1) It is under the same license as the mktemp package > 2) It is under the same license as the LFS book > 3) It has no license, and is thus not free software > > I guess (and hope) that the author (Tushar Teredesai) assumed that it > falls under either 1) or 2). > > It would be less ambiguous and thus much better if patches had a > "License" field in the header. I don't think it would be much work, > either.
I had assumed 1. But you all are correct, it is better to mark it so. Will do that. -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
