gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?


From: Gordon Burditt
Subject: Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 03:50:47 -0000

>   As you said, under "17 USC 109", the patch of the GPL software is
>   not a copy or a derivative work of the GPL software, so, I can
>   distribute the patch under whatever license I want, right? The

I believe the original author meant *if* the patch of the GPL
software is not a copy or derivative work of the GPL software, you
can distribute the patch under whatever license you want.

A context diff is arguably a derivative work of the original 
since it includes lines from the original.  A sufficiently complex
modification would put the entire original in the context diff.
Including the entire original would clearly make it a derivative work.

The output of "diff -e", though, doesn't include the original lines.
If all the patch does is include NEW code or delete old code, there's
no code in there from the original in there at all.  On the other
hand, something like changing:
        cp = malloc(strlen(foo+1));
TO:
        cp = malloc(strlen(foo)+1);

still leaves some of the original line in the new line (the new line is the
only one included in a diff -e patch).  You can argue about how much of
that you can do before the line is crossed.  I am not a lawyer.


>   patch should not be limited by the software license which I patched
>   for, right?

*IF* the patch is not a derivative work of the original, right.
This is far from a given.

>Ask yourself the following, and all your questions will be answered:
>Does the patch work without the GPLed software?  

I don't think this is the appropriate test.  There are a number of
user-level programs which will only run on Linux (say, because they
need the video4linux drivers, NOT included in the distribution).
They are NOT derivatives of Linux because of that.  Few programs
include a <stdio.h> because they expect the compiler (which might
be gcc) to supply that.  This does NOT make them derivatives of gcc
because of that.

>If it doesn't, then
>it is clearly a deriviate work.  

I don't buy that.  This makes virtually all software a derivative
of a *POWER CORD*.  It makes virtually all modern technology a
derivative of *OIL*.

>The opposite isn't true in all cases,
>and requires a more detailed explanation about the patch and how it
>interacts with the GPLed program.

                                                Gordon L. Burditt


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]