On Jul 16, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote: > Let's revisit the example above. I take a file which, for the purpose of > this example will be GPLv2. I modify that file to fix some bug. That file > remains GPLv2 because its a derived work of a GPLv2 file and nobody has > changed its license condition (I COULD HAVE changed it to GPLv3, since > everybody has that right by the GPL, but I chose not to). After I get > everything working, I make the patch.
And since the FSF released the file it is based on under GPLv2+, if you release your patch, presumably a copyrightable derived work, it must be released under GPLv2 or, at your option, any later version. > But it WAS independently developed! Let's suppose the purpose of > the patch was to change all occurences of "function1" to > "function2". That patch has no protectable content, so the question > of what license the PATCH ITSELF has is irrelevant. If the patch is not a copyrightable work, discussing its copyright license is like asking "how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck would chuck wood?" :-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
