Many of the patches we use are from other distributors, who don't specifically license their patches. The only way to know the license for sure is to get it from the original hacker or author, and this can be a painful thing to maintain. Many patches aren't worth copyrighting if they're doing trivial changes.. such as the gcc-specs patch. Aswell, anything patching GPL source will not need a copyright. Only patches which add functions to BSD, or other non-gpl opensource, source would be disputable. In order to add a new copyright, the new material needs to be unique and original, and most patches are not original or unique material.
I think its only sane to make sure new files have copyrights, not the patch itself. robert On July 22, 2005 09:26 pm, Randy McMurchy wrote: > Henrik S. Hansen wrote these words on 07/22/05 20:12 CST: > > 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. > > This is a good idea. The Hints submission guidelines already mandate > that a "License" field is in the header. Why not patches as well? > > -- > Randy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
