Re: patches license

[Florent Monnier <fmonnier@linux-nantes.fr.eu.org>]

Sylvain Le Gall a écrit :
> On 30-01-2009, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:
> > --WhfpMioaduB5tiZL
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> > Content-Disposition: inline
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 05:41:01PM +0100, Florent Monnier wrote:
> >> OK
> >> And are patches always under GPL, or should I check for each patch ?
> >
> > You should check, as you should check with software in general.
> >
> > ACK on Julien comment: patches generally match software
> > license. Please report any violation of this assumption you find in
> > our packages.
>
> <IMHO>
>
> I am not sure that every patches I have done are compliant with upstream
> LICENSE... However, I think that "few lines" patches are mostly
> irrelevent WRT license in general -- i.e. it is ok to provide a few line
> patches without copyright/license.

deciding a license is irrelevent for a patch or decide that it is relevent 
and provide the patch in public domain are 2 different things.

> The only thing is that it is a good practice to say where your patch
> comes from, if you decide to copy them elsewhere....

I agree at 200%.
In the packages that I have imported from fedora I did put the attribution 
related to Richard Jones. But not in the right way. So everything have 
disappear. I hope he won't mind.

> </IHMO>
>
> Regards,
> Sylvain Le Gall