[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: License of a patch


On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, D M German wrote:
> After my presentation at DebConf this year I was pointed to your efforts
> on the Patch Tagging Guidelines.
> One thing I believe would be useful is if the patch included a
> license. The simplest license would be "Same as patched code" but it
> will clarify it.
> Similarly, but perhaps more complex, it could point towards a Copyright
> Assignment of the patch to the upstream.

I asked D M German to repost his mail to this list for further discussion,
that's the part above.

> And explain why do you think this is necessary? Any modification to
> existing files is implicitly under the same license. Any new file can
> embed the license information with the usual copyright notice.

But that part contains my questions that I wanted him to answer.

We have had several times people suggesting to add a License field
to the patch headers but it's not clear that it's useful at all due
to the explanations above.

Furthermore the free from Description field can be used for any
exceptional case.

Should I modify the DEP-3 to include a paragraph explaining how
people are expected to clarify the license when needed?

Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer ◈ [Flattr=20693]

Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
                      ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)

Reply to: