Resolving the licensing issues.

Michael S. Zick mszick at morethan.org
Wed Mar 1 18:32:24 UTC 2006


On Wed March 1 2006 12:06, Jim Thompson wrote:
> Allan Clark wrote:
> 
> >
> > On 3/2/06, *Yann E. MORIN* <yann.morin.1998 at anciens.enib.fr
> > <mailto:yann.morin.1998 at anciens.enib.fr>> wrote:
> >
> >     Vladimir, Rob,
> >     All,
> >
> >     On Wednesday 01 March 2006 181, Vladimir N. Oleynik wrote:
> >     > > Are your patches submitted under the GPL?
> >     > A patches with license? Smiles ;-)
> >
> >     A patch is your work. As such you can decide what license you
> >     publish it under. 
> >
> >
> > A patch based on existing code is not a derivative work?  OK, it might
> > be "your derivative work", but it's a derivative work, right?
> 
> Yes, and that means that if the implmentor of the patch distributes the
> code (containing) the patch outside his org, *then* the GPL comes into play.
> 
> The FSF (who know the rules about as well as anyone) require written
> assignments for submitted patches to FSF-maintained code before it goes
> in the tree.
> 
That document assigns copyright (ownership). They then are owners of
the code to do with as any owner may.

> I can't see how this situation is any different.
> 
This project does not require that you surrender (assign) copyright
(ownership) - it only requires license (permission) to use that is
compatable with the GPL license.

Mike

> Jim
> _______________________________________________
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at busybox.net
> http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
> 
> 



More information about the busybox mailing list