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.
robert On July 22, 2005 08:01 pm, Henrik S. Hansen wrote: > Hi > > I have a question regarding the licensing of the patches used in the > LFS book (version 6.1). It is not clearly stated anywhere what the > license for these patches are. I assume that the patches written by > LFS developers are under the same license as the book. Is this > correct? > > I think it would be wise to clarify this issue, or even better: have a > written policy that any patches that go in LFS must be under a free > software license. > > Regards, > Henrik S. Hansen -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
