> It is source, covered by the copyright assignment. The assignment, if I > recall correctly, says that the FSF will distribute the source under license.
Yes, but doesn't say *which one*: that's the whole point here! All it gives are very general terms that the license must follow. That's what I've been calling the "mini-GPL". > I was talking about patches -- copyrightable creative works which may > be assigned and licensed. You appear to be talking about something else. No, I'm trying to separate the two parts of a patch, the fact that it's a derived work from the file being patched and the creative component of the patch, by discussing each individually because I believe that different licensing issues apply to each.
