On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 01:46:52PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 05:54:28PM +0000, Bart Martens wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:29:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > Actually, all of those cases are equivalent, and in all of those cases the > > > patch author has the option of what license they want to use. > > > > It's conventional (although not entirely legally sound) in the free > > > software community to just assume that any patch submitted without any > > > explicit license statement is licensed under the same terms as the > > > upstream source. > > > I guess you meant : It's conventional (although not entirely legally > > sound) in the free software community to just assume that the copyright of > > any patch submitted without any explicit copyright and license statement > > is transferred (given) to the copyright holders of the upstream software. > > This is a far less common convention... precisely because it's far less > legally sound. You can make a good faith assumption that someone who's > sending you a patch for inclusion means for it to be under the same license; > but copyright assignments need to be documented.
It's what happens in practice when I submit a patch upstream and don't say anything about my copyright. Upstream integrates the patch in the upstream source code and redistributes the result with upstream copyright and license. I think that this happens quite a lot. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130110215610.gc28...@master.debian.org
