nano-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nano-devel] Patch for bug #44950


From: Mike Frysinger
Subject: Re: [Nano-devel] Patch for bug #44950
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:18:58 -0500

On 20 Jan 2016 17:11, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016, at 19:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On 19 Jan 2016 23:57, Rishabh Dave wrote:
> > > Patches fall under same licence as of the software to which it is applied
> > > i.e in case of nano GNU GPL v3?
> > 
> > practically speaking, it would be simplest if the patch had the same
> > license as the code base it was modifying.  pedantically speaking,
> > there is no such requirement (legally speaking), although there might
> > be from a purely project sanity pov.
> 
> Well, it doesn't matter much what license governs the patch itself
> -- after it has been applied, I don't care about the patch any more.

legally speaking, that is incorrect

> The patch modifies a piece of code in src/files.c, Rishabh, and that
> file is governed by the GPL v3.  So putting your code into that file,
> automatically means it is governed by the GPL v3.

that is also incorrect.  you can put patches under different licenses,
both more restrictive, and less restrictive, and conflicting.  if he
licensed the file to you under the GPLv2+, then you simply relicense
it to GPLv3 (which is the rest of the file).

saying a single file must be under the same license is like saying the
whole codebase must be under the same license.  neither is correct.
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]