* Michael K. Edwards: > On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:49:36 +0100, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> * Craig Sanders: >> >> > and, as you pointed out yourself, this freedom (to patch) exists >> > even when it is not explicitly granted by the license. >> >> Without permission from the author, you may not redistribute patches >> in many jurisdictions. (DJB's analysis clearly does not apply to the >> situation in Germany, just to name one example.) > > Could you elaborate on this? Is this because there are snippets of > the code being modified in the patch? Or is there some more basic > theory in operation by which patches are equated with the derivative > works resulting from their application, or are incitements to > infringement by their recipients? Do you have a reference to which > you could point readers, preferably directly from a statute or legal > proceeding? (I read German very, very slowly, but I'll give it a > shot.)
Under German law, all changes to a computer program require explicit permission from the copyright holder *if* you want to share them with others. (Some private modifications are permitted.) See <http://www.netlaw.de/gesetze/urhg.htm>, �� 69 c, d, e UrhG.
