If the author of the patch is the one that puts it there, surely it is up to them to make any necessary statements about what license they want?
BTW, I think the relevant sections of the GPL seem to be section 5 (and that of the LGPL sections 3, 4, 5). http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html If you really stood on ceremony, could you claim section 5b of the GPL applied to patches? See also section 4b of the LGPL for possibly relevant conditions. As I'm not a lawyer, I don't read these licenses very well. Which categories do patches fall under? Which categories do forks of LGPL libraries that use part of, but not all of another LGPL library? Which categories do GPL distributions that include forks of LGPL libraries, with patches, fall under? Bill. On 18 May, 02:07, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: > On 05/17/2010 05:16 PM, Bill Hart wrote: > > > In fact, no prominent notice was made on the GMP website > > regarding the license of the 30 odd lines of patches that we did apply > > to MPIR. > > Does Sage have a clear, "prominent" statement about the license of > patches posted to trac? Say, unless otherwise clearly specified, by > posting a patch to trac, you are guaranteeing that the patch is licensed > under GPLv2+. > > Thanks, > > Jason > > -- > To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to > sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel > URL:http://www.sagemath.org -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
