RFH: GPLv3

[Michael Eager]

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	 eager@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-325-8077