Re: [RFC] Patches have a license

Andre Hedrick
2003-01-27T12:08:41Z

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