On Sat, May 22, 2021, 7:20 PM Паша <pavel.finkelsht...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > вс, 23 мая 2021 г. в 02:15, Manhong Dai <da...@umich.edu>: > >> "(and not copyrighted, surprisingly) part of original source code" >> >> I am truly surprised by the quoted above . How can you think the original >> source code is not copyrighted? As far as I know, US copyright law doesn't >> have distinction between different parts of software code. >> >> Unless the upstream put the work in public domain explicitly as in the >> GPL FAQ link below, I don't think you understanding about copyright is any >> close to right. >> >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequiredToClaimCopyright >> >> Best, >> Manhong >> Sent from phone >> >> > Of course, I meant that there is no copyright notice inside the patch > file. Does it mean that the distribution of any patch file, patching GPL > code is illegal? Because it by itself clearly breaks > Just like any other lawsuit, it is not confirmed to be illegal until a court says so. If I am the package maintainer and the upstream complained, I would copy all the legal document including copyright, license, etc. from the upstream. If they are small enough, I can even put them inside the patch file so it is just one single patch file, which is much easier for anybody who wants to modify my work further. If the upstream is still grumpy, I will give up and find an alternative. Just my two cents, as I mentioned many times, I know nothing about law. Best, Manhong > > > publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice > > Pasha >
