John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it.
However, his patches are patches *of
On Friday 26 April 2002 01:18, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
has the rights of authorship in, he may do
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 01:29:57AM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
Actually he can copy all he wants without complying with the GPL.
It would take a court to actually force him to comply with the license and/or
That's sort of like saying he can kill all he wants to; it would take a
court to
On Friday 26 April 2002 01:45, David Starner wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 01:29:57AM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
Actually he can copy all he wants without complying with the GPL.
It would take a court to actually force him to comply with the license
and/or
That's sort of like
Lynn Winebarger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In one case the police will probably come after him (assuming they
figure out who it was). Here the copyright holders have to come after
him. There's a substantial difference.
And what we're talking about is exactly that. Eben Moglen, who is
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
has the rights of authorship in, he may do
On 25 Apr 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:53:24PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote:
A patch to a program is a derivative work of the program, in most cases.
Hence, you need permission of the copyright owner to distribute it;
lacking direct permission (rather painful for the
also sprach John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.04.27.0106 +0200]:
However, his patches are patches *of Linux*, and so if he distributes
the patched Linux, he is required to distribute the full source,
because Linux is copyable only under the terms of the GPL and that's
what the GPL requires.
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
