Re: PathSearchAndQualify patch not applied?

Nadav,

That is not necessarily true.  A contributor of a patch does, in fact,
own copyright to the code which their patch creates.  This is why
several features are unavailable in XFree86 as some contributors chose
to revoke their code with the license change and move over to X11.org
which remains on GPL.  However, if you write a patch for a chunk of code
under a license like the GPL, which addresses derivative works, your
patch is bound to the GPL as well.  While you hold full ownership and
copyright of the code, under the terms of the GPL, you are required to
oblige to the license being used in code being patched...  Which in the
case of the GPL (can I type GPL one more time? :-) ), means that while
you own your code, it has to be released under the GPL with all of the
necessary comments and/or documentation, etc,  And users can use and
derive from your work all they want because your patch must be kept
open, as long as they too, use the GPL.

Keef Aragon


On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 04:10, Nadav Frum wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> 
> > IANAL, but this is my understanding:
> > 
> > Nadav Frum wrote:
> > > The ultimate goal for Cedega is full compatibility with Windows (as
> > > far as games are concerned).Therefore, if there is a compatibility
> > > problem with the code no one should be able to stop TG from fixing it
> > > by exercising copyrights.
> > 
> > That sounds all well and good, but it's *not* how I understand copyright
> > law to work (at least in the U.S.).
> > 
> > Copyright means you have the right to decide who is allowed to make
> > copies of your work, and under what circumstances.If a person does not
> > want TG to make copies of that person's work (their patch) when
> > distributing Cedega, then that is that person's right, and TG cannot use
> > their patch.
> > 
> > > If someone advertises a brilliant patch or idea which can benefit
> > > Cedega, I believe TG can use it without copyright problems since you
> > > cannot be forced to use an inferior solution in your code.
> > 
> > Then you believe incorrectly -- and your "since" clause is the issue.
> > In U.S. copyright law, there is no such provision, and I highly doubt
> > that there is one in any other country's copyright law either.You
> > *can* be forced to use an inferior solution, if you can't come up with
> > an independent implementation that's not considered a derivative work.
> > (There are also possible patents on algorithms to be worried about in
> > some cases, though probably not here.)
> > 
> > I think the reason TG wants X11 licensed patches is because of the many
> > different licenses that apply to different parts of the Cedega CVStree.
> > Without an X11 license on the patch, it probably can't legally be used
> > in connection with all of those licenses (and without any license at
> > all, it can't be used at all unless the copyright on the patch is
> > assigned to TG).
> 
> I am for copyrights and would not consider abusing them or encourage 
> others to do so.
> 
> However, not everything that one produces is copyrightable.  A fix for a 
> bug or an implementation for a stub in somebody else's code is not
> copyrightable.  Algorithms may be patented but the idea behind them should be
> represented in isolation and not in a patch.  And if you advertise any idea
> before starting the patenting process you lose all patenting rights to that 
> idea.  Patent laws are separate from copyright laws.
> 
> Nadav Frum
> ----------

-- 
Keef Aragon <[email protected]>