On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 05:54:28PM +0000, Bart Martens wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:29:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Actually, all of those cases are equivalent, and in all of those cases the > > patch author has the option of what license they want to use. > > It's conventional (although not entirely legally sound) in the free > > software community to just assume that any patch submitted without any > > explicit license statement is licensed under the same terms as the > > upstream source. > 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. This is a far less common convention... precisely because it's far less legally sound. You can make a good faith assumption that someone who's sending you a patch for inclusion means for it to be under the same license; but copyright assignments need to be documented. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature