Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 5 Sep 2000 01:47:46 -0500 (CDT) | From | <> | Subject | Re: GPL violations: make it harder |
| |
>Then it's actually not licensed to anyone, and is thus illegal to use >by anyone (unless you say otherwise, of course.) You don't have to >put the © symbol into something for it to be copyrighted (although a >legal copyright notice, meaning "©", "Copyright", or "Copr", the year, >and the owner -- see the "Copyright" header of this message -- is >recommended.)
Correct, in fact you have to explicitely state "I place this code in the public domain" before it becomes so.
I also think it's a logical conclusion that a patch to a GPL'd program is released under the GPL - even if you don't specifically say so.
The only problem that may arise is whether a "software program" is treated differently by the copyright laws than a "bugfix/patch". I know I've heard people say this was the case.
[ Just to give an example that's not the same as this one, but brings out issues related to patches and bugfixes ]
Say you voluntarily send a patch to a commercial software vendor without specifying any restrictions on using it at that time. I seriously doubt the courts would rule that you are now a part owner of their program.
-- Brian Hayward
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |