Bart Martens <ba...@debian.org> writes: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:29:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Actually, all of those cases are equivalent, and in all of those cases >> the patch author has the option of what license they want to use. >> It's conventional (although not entirely legally sound) in the free >> software community to just assume that any patch submitted without any >> explicit license statement is licensed under the same terms as the >> upstream source. > I guess you meant : It's conventional (although not entirely legally > sound) in the free software community to just assume that the copyright > of any patch submitted without any explicit copyright and license > statement is transferred (given) to the copyright holders of the > upstream software. No, definitely not. The copyright stays with the original author, copyright notices nonwithstanding. (Copyright notices say nothing about who actually owns the copyright.) It's not possible to transfer copyright without legal paperwork (if it's possible to do so at all). -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fw28q4vb....@windlord.stanford.edu
