Byron A Jeff wrote: [...] > However, your original post was questioning the ability to relicense a > distributed patch for GPL software. That's a horse of a completely different > color. In that case you are precisely talking about distribution, and so the > full weight of the GPL is in effect.
Distribution under 17 USC 109 aside for a moment, the GPL has no weight whatsoever for a patch that isn't an copy or a derivative work of some GPL'd original. And it must be infringing (in absence of a license). It means that a patch must contain some protected (under copyright law) expression (i.e. elements not filtered out by the AFC test) from the GPL'd original. Note that mere references to original code don't count as protected elements. It is not that hard to create a patch where no protected expression is taken from the original at all, or at least separate a patch into GPL'd and GPL-free components. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
