On 7/25/05, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. >
Please update the book to mktemp-1.5-add_tempfile-3.patch. Thanks. -- 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
