[RFC] Patches have a license

[RFC] Patches have a license

[Balbir Singh]

Looking at the recent posting on lkml, I find that
a lot of people tend to take and apply patches posted
on lkml into proprietary modules.

I would request everyone to post their patches with
a license, failing which it should be assumed that
the license is GPL.

People picking up patches, please ensure that if
you are going to release only the binary of your
module, then please do not pick up code from lkml
and put it into your modules, unless you agree with
the license.

If what I have said is not agreeable, please
come up with a license for patches. This will
keep confusion to the minimum.

Comments,
Balbir



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Re: [RFC] Patches have a license

[Dave Jones]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 01:58:40AM -0800, Balbir Singh wrote:
 > I would request everyone to post their patches with
 > a license, failing which it should be assumed that
 > the license is GPL.

Surely the license of the diff matches the license of the
code it is patching ?  

		Dave

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk

Re: [RFC] Patches have a license

[John Bradford]

>  > I would request everyone to post their patches with
>  > a license, failing which it should be assumed that
>  > the license is GPL.
> 
> Surely the license of the diff matches the license of the
> code it is patching ?  

That is what I've always thought.  However, in any case, even if the
patch itself isn't explicitly licensed as GPL, the code generated as a
result of patching a GPLed piece of code, must surely be GPLed,
because applying the patch is no different to editing the file with a
text editor.

John.

Re: [RFC] Patches have a license

[Andre Hedrick]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Dave Jones wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 01:58:40AM -0800, Balbir Singh wrote:
>  > I would request everyone to post their patches with
>  > a license, failing which it should be assumed that
>  > the license is GPL.
> 
> Surely the license of the diff matches the license of the
> code it is patching ?  

NO!

Insert a random amount of comments or linefeeds and hand edit the patch to
conform on a --dry-run and it does not mate.

Remember "patch" is only a series of offsets and comparison.
There is no checksum against the file to be patched.

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

Re: [RFC] Patches have a license

[Sean Neakums]

commence  Dave Jones quotation:

> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 01:58:40AM -0800, Balbir Singh wrote:
>  > I would request everyone to post their patches with a license,
>  > failing which it should be assumed that the license is GPL.
>
> Surely the license of the diff matches the license of the code it is
> patching ?

I'm not sure that it would *have* to.  A diff could be considered a
program in its own right that drives the "patch" source code
transformation engine.  In general, programs that process free data
don't have to be free themselves for the data to remain free.

-- 
 /                          |
[|] Sean Neakums            | Size *does* matter.
[|] <sneakums@zork.net>     | That's why I use Emacs.
 \                          |

Re: [RFC] Patches have a license

[Helge Hafting]

Dave Jones wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 01:58:40AM -0800, Balbir Singh wrote:
>  > I would request everyone to post their patches with
>  > a license, failing which it should be assumed that
>  > the license is GPL.
> 
> Surely the license of the diff matches the license of the
> code it is patching ?

Usually in practice, but not necessarily.  Try diff'ing
two files with different licence, then go apply
it at some file with a third licence. :-/

Helge Hafting

Re: [RFC] Patches have a license

[dean gaudet]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Dave Jones wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 01:58:40AM -0800, Balbir Singh wrote:
>  > I would request everyone to post their patches with
>  > a license, failing which it should be assumed that
>  > the license is GPL.
>
> Surely the license of the diff matches the license of the
> code it is patching ?

no... actually the diff poster retains their own copyright on the diff
unless they specify otherwise.  so not only would folks using them in
proprietary code would have to ask your permission to use the patch, but
so should linus request you to release it under GPL.

although it's somewhat tongue in cheek, check the url i include on all
messages i send -- <http://arctic.org/~dean/legal>.

i'm not sure if they still do it, but when IBM started contributing to the
apache project, every patch they posted included a disclaimer and release
under the apache license.

also FSF requires a release form on file from you to accept any patch.
(i've also got a form on file with the ASF which i think formalises this
copyright issue for core group members.)

in the end i'm sure you could argue your intent was clear and implicit,
but some folks prefer to be explicit.

-dean

Re: [RFC] Patches have a license

[Russell King]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 01:58:40AM -0800, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Looking at the recent posting on lkml, I find that
> a lot of people tend to take and apply patches posted
> on lkml into proprietary modules.

There are two ways to look at a patch on a public mailing list such as
LKML - either it is a public publication without restriction, or it
is a derived work of a copyrighted work, where the copyright on that
work explicitly covers derived works.  I'm not going to argue which
since that's the domain of legal people to sort out, and one that I'm
not particularly interested in.

However, basic common sense suggests that if a patch author wants to
ensure that patches are not used in a way that they do not intend them
to be used, then the patch author should explicitly state the license
that they supply the patches under.

-- 
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)                The developer of ARM Linux
             http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html

Re: [RFC] Patches have a license

[Andre Hedrick]

Does not matter!

The copyright can only protect the actual file.  The ideas expressed
inside the file are not protectable, unless patents are involved.

It only matters if one can prove it is a derived work.
Otherwise, it is a combined work and GPL does not cover "combination"
works.

On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Russell King wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 01:58:40AM -0800, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > Looking at the recent posting on lkml, I find that
> > a lot of people tend to take and apply patches posted
> > on lkml into proprietary modules.
> 
> There are two ways to look at a patch on a public mailing list such as
> LKML - either it is a public publication without restriction, or it
> is a derived work of a copyrighted work, where the copyright on that
> work explicitly covers derived works.  I'm not going to argue which
> since that's the domain of legal people to sort out, and one that I'm
> not particularly interested in.
> 
> However, basic common sense suggests that if a patch author wants to
> ensure that patches are not used in a way that they do not intend them
> to be used, then the patch author should explicitly state the license
> that they supply the patches under.
> 
> -- 
> Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)                The developer of ARM Linux
>              http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group