Re: IglooFTP goes commercial. Violation of GPL?

[Carl Mummert <mummert@cs.wcu.edu>]

>> AFAIK, the person who owns the copyright on the work is free 
>> to change that copyright as the code goes on. 
>
>Well, there might actually be an exception here!  The 0.9 code contains a
>patch by one Igor Lefterov.  Unless Mr. Lefterov also agrees to the change
>in copyright, it might have to go back to GPL unless his patch is removed
>or unless he agrees to the new copyright.
>

George:

  I am sure that you know more about this than I do.  Here
is my question now:
  
  Who owns patches?  When a patch is integrated into the main product,
doesn't the new code incorporated from the patch become property of the
original owner?  This is certainly the impression that I would wager $1
that most people have - that code sumbitted as patches falls under the
control of the 'main' author, not of the patch author.  I am speaking of
the code after it is incorporated, not the patch itself, to which the
patch author would appear to have closer ties. 

  If, as you suggest, patch code remains the property of the patch author,
then the 'ownership' of the entire program comes into question.  

Carl