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 whatever he wishes with it. > >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 kernel), you have to >distribute it under the GPL if you distribute it.
Only assuming that you distribute the patched kernel as a unit. It is entirely feasable to distribute the patches as a separately copyrightable entity. -- Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
