On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 05:54:28PM +0000, Bart Martens wrote: > I guess you meant : It's conventional (although not entirely legally sound) in > the free software community to just assume that the copyright of any patch > submitted without any explicit copyright and license statement is transferred > (given) to the copyright holders of the upstream software. Nope, that doesn't look conventional at all to me :-) $usually it is assumed that the copyright belongs to the patch author (assuming the patch is copyrightable in the first place…), whereas the license, which is often not declared by the patch author, is assumed to be the same of the code base you're contributing to. Of course, your value of $usually might vary. For those interested in this topic, an interesting debate of this "convention" happened ~1.5 years ago, as part of the FOSS-wide discussion on CAA/CLAs. Here are a couple of relevant contributions: - http://opensource.com/law/11/7/trouble-harmony-part-1 - http://opensource.com/law/11/7/trouble-harmony-part-2 Look for "inbound=outbound" in them. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature