RE: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?

[Dancefire]

Hi, Alexander,

I am sorry, I am not quite understand your words.

As you said, under "17 USC 109", the patch of the GPL software is not a copy
or a derivative work of the GPL software, so, I can distribute the patch
under whatever license I want, right? The patch should not be limited by the
software license which I patched for, right?

Cheers.

Dancefire


-----Original Message-----
From: gnu-misc-discuss-bounces+dancefire=gmail.com@gnu.org
[mailto:gnu-misc-discuss-bounces+dancefire=gmail.com@gnu.org] On Behalf Of
Alexander Terekhov
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 2:49 AM
To: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?


Byron A Jeff wrote:
[...]
> However, your original post was questioning the ability to relicense a
> distributed patch for GPL software. That's a horse of a completely
different
> color. In that case you are precisely talking about distribution, and so
the
> full weight of the GPL is in effect.

Distribution under 17 USC 109 aside for a moment, the GPL has no weight 
whatsoever for a patch that isn't an copy or a derivative work of some 
GPL'd original. And it must be infringing (in absence of a license). It 
means that a patch must contain some protected (under copyright law) 
expression (i.e. elements not filtered out by the AFC test) from the 
GPL'd original. Note that mere references to original code don't count 
as protected elements. It is not that hard to create a patch where no 
protected expression is taken from the original at all, or at least 
separate a patch into GPL'd and GPL-free components.

regards,
alexander.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss