| 1 |
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> The GPL obliges us to keep such patches around for three years, iirc. |
| 3 |
> Don't we do that ? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Why? We own the copyright on the patches (to whatever degree that |
| 6 |
they're copyrightable), so we don't need a license to distribute them. |
| 7 |
If somebody else wants to redistribute our patches they need our |
| 8 |
permission or they need to comply with whatever license we issue them |
| 9 |
under (likely the same as the upstream license so that our users don't |
| 10 |
have bindist issues). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The only thing we might need a license to redistribute are the parts |
| 13 |
of the patch that we didn't change, and upstream already provides |
| 14 |
those. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I don't think patches are a derivative work. The result of applying |
| 17 |
the patches to the original source is a derivative work, but we don't |
| 18 |
distribute that - it only exists in a user's /var/tmp. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
At least, that's my understanding of copyright. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Rich |
Archives