Robert Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
These issues are a good reason to have an explicit policy on this matter. For example, the patch for mktemp creates the script file `maketemp', which does not have a copyright or license notice. In my mind, this can mean one of three things: 1) It is under the same license as the mktemp package 2) It is under the same license as the LFS book 3) It has no license, and is thus not free software I guess (and hope) that the author (Tushar Teredesai) assumed that it falls under either 1) or 2). It would be less ambiguous and thus much better if patches had a "License" field in the header. I don't think it would be much work, either. -- Henrik S. Hansen -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
