Richard Kenner wrote:
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".
That is the point. The FSF, at this time, has said that as of August 1
all patches are GPLv3.
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.
You want to mix two different things and call them the same.
The only part which matters is the creative changes.
--
Michael Eager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
