On Nov 9, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Kevin Van Vechten wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Landon Fuller wrote:
For what it's worth, it's my assumption that any patches I write
are licensed
under the same license as the project.
Er, I should clarify. Licensed under the same license as the
project *that I'm patching*.
I agree, and think it's a natural assumption. If a patch were
covered by different licensing terms, then those terms should have
been included in the patch to begin with.
Is this something we can make explicit anywhere in any way? I
recently wrote the following in the base/HACKING file:
Project naming and copyright attribution:
* "The MacPorts Project" is the string that shall be used whereever
there's a need to reference our project name, such as in copyright
notices.
* A developer or contributor is adviced to attribute himself a
copyright notice if he/she is contributing a full new source file or a
full new feature
to an already existing source file in the "base" component of our
repository.
* An exception to this rule is our Portfiles, since they are partly
meant for human eyes consumption and the boilerplate header comments
should be kept
down to a minimum
* A copyright notice attributed to our group name, "The MacPorts
Project", should also be added to these source files (if not already
there) if they're
being uploaded to the "base" component of our repository, since as
such they are being contributed to the project.
But I don't know if we could go as far as requesting/enforcing that
submitted patches be under the BSD license.
Regards,....
-jmpp
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
