On 5/25/22 12:59, Athos Ribeiro wrote:
I contacted the patch author to wonder how we could re-distribute the
patch (see the discussion in [2]). They agreed to license it with the
upstream project's license (AGPLv3), and I suggested the approach
described in [4].
Since IANAL, I decided to ask devel-discuss if there's a better approach
for licensing this patch or if this should be enough to include it as a
delta. Note that this was submitted to Debian in [5], where I did
raise this same concern.
To be honest, I think general FOSS practice is to assume the patch is
licensed the same as the code it is changing. In the case of copyleft
licenses like (A)GPL, that's essentially* legally required (i.e. if
someone is distributing modified versions*, they have* to be licensed
under the same license).
* One can quibble over whether the patch is distributing enough of the
original code to be a derivative work. On the other hand, one can also
quibble over whether a given patch is creative enough to even be
copyrightable.
If you really want to be safe (which it seems you do), all you need is
for the author to confirm it's licensed as "AGPLv3 or later" or "the
same as the project" or something unambigous. Putting the full license
grant is one (and the most clear) way to do that, but it's not the only
way to do it.
--
Richard
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
