>> Anthony: Once the patches start comming in, though,
>> I'm not sure about the situation.
>>
>> Alain: Good point, Anthony. When the patches start
>> coming in (e.g. are added to the FC version), the
>> licencing of these patches will be FC-GPL. Can you
>> then add these patches to your own version(s) and
>> continue to licence these other versions with a scheme
>> other than FC-GPL?
>
> Adrian: This is what I meant when I said once we licence under the GPL, we
> are limited to the GPL. We don't want to have two different versions from
> the same organisation.
>
> Adrian Sutton
Yea, it gets weird, serving two masters. Granted.
However, a patch is not much of a concern as it isn't a significant,
original new work. A patch is a patch. It isn't worthy of its own copyright
as it needs to work with the main body.
Patch contributors do just that -- contribute the patch back to the makers
of the original owners. This habit is part of the ethics of the open source
ways of the baazar.
The weird part comes into play however when a significant, original work
comes into play that is much above and beyond a patch. That is possible.
That is where the fork is most possible to rear its UGLY head, that can't be
put back into common ground.
So, there is a looming possibility of a problem -- but it ain't with a
"patch" IMHO.
Mark Rauterkus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
