%% Carl Mummert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: cm> Who owns patches?
The person who wrote it always "owns" it... sort of. The patch can be argued to be a derived work of the original, so in a sense the author might not own it entirely. cm> When a patch is integrated into the main product, doesn't the new cm> code incorporated from the patch become property of the original cm> owner? No. The main product now becomes a derived work of both authors. That's the easy answer. The more complex answer is only a court could ultimately decide it, and they may take into consideration various factors such as the size of the patch, importance to the whole, etc. cm> If, as you suggest, patch code remains the property of the patch cm> author, then the 'ownership' of the entire program comes into cm> question. Precisely. Sometimes no one cares. Does Linus actually legally _own_ the kernel anymore? Who legally owns XEmacs? This is _exactly_ why the FSF requires copyright assignment. Done this way there is absolutely no question who owns the entirety of the program. If you care about this, that's the only way to go. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Network Management Development "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
