[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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

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
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.291 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site