Robert Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
This is the reason I assumed that authors generally mean patches to fall under the same copyright as the package they patch. > 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. You mean that it won't need a license. Every non-trivial work is by default copyrighted. > 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. The example I gave earlier in this thread (the maketemp patch for mktemp, creating a whole new file) is an example of a patch that is non-trivial. So I think the best thing will be to make sure that at least patches, originating from LFS are attached with a "License" header. It would avoid misunderstandings, and wouldn't involve much work. -- Henrik S. Hansen -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
