This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFH: GPLv3
On Jul 16, 2007, kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) wrote:
> Let's revisit the example above. I take a file which, for the purpose of
> this example will be GPLv2. I modify that file to fix some bug. That file
> remains GPLv2 because its a derived work of a GPLv2 file and nobody has
> changed its license condition (I COULD HAVE changed it to GPLv3, since
> everybody has that right by the GPL, but I chose not to). After I get
> everything working, I make the patch.
And since the FSF released the file it is based on under GPLv2+, if
you release your patch, presumably a copyrightable derived work, it
must be released under GPLv2 or, at your option, any later version.
> But it WAS independently developed! Let's suppose the purpose of
> the patch was to change all occurences of "function1" to
> "function2". That patch has no protectable content, so the question
> of what license the PATCH ITSELF has is irrelevant.
If the patch is not a copyrightable work, discussing its copyright
license is like asking "how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a
woodchuck would chuck wood?" :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}