From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3081 invoked by alias); 24 Jul 2007 09:07:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 3013 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jul 2007 09:07:11 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:07:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l6O96HuU001829; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:06:17 -0400 Received: from pobox.fab.redhat.com (pobox.fab.redhat.com [10.33.63.12]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l6O96GDA028562; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:06:16 -0400 Received: from [10.33.6.13] (vpn-6-13.fab.redhat.com [10.33.6.13]) by pobox.fab.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l6O96FXP005878; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:06:15 -0400 Message-ID: <46A5C10A.2000903@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:01:00 -0000 From: Nick Clifton User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070301) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ralf Corsepius CC: Jakub Jelinek , binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Switching GAS to GPLv3 References: <20070703113243.GF4603@sunsite.mff.cuni.cz> <4694E508.2020302@redhat.com> <1185202505.10535.66.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> In-Reply-To: <1185202505.10535.66.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00365.txt.bz2 Hi Ralf, >>> What does this mean for backporting fixes from binutils trunk to older >>> binutils releases? >> So the answer appears to be that in order to apply patches made to GPLv3 >> sources to previous releases we have to change the affected files over >> to the GPLv3 as well. > > In my understanding everybody who submits patches to binutils must have > a copyright assignment to the FSF on file (unless patches are considered > trivial). Correct. > I am I wrong in presuming that a patch contributed under a copyright > assignment can be implied to cover GPLv2 and GPLv3? I think so - I think that there needs to be an explicit statement to this effect from the patch's author. > In other words, if I's submit a patch against a GPLv3'd version of a > package I'd implicitly assume my patch also to be applicable to a > GPLv2'd version of the package. The danger word in that paragraph is "implicit". My understanding is that relicensing the patch needs to be explicit. Here is what I understand the situation to be: * If you contribute a patch against a source file which is currently licensed under "the GPL version 2 (or at your option a later version)" then you, or someone else, may apply that patch to a version of that source file that is licensed under version 3 of the GPL. * If you contribute a patch against a source file which is currently licensed under the GPL version 3, you also have the right to explicitly state that your patch can be applied to versions of the source file that are licensed under GPLv2 (or indeed any other license). You may choose to make this statement at the time that you contribute the patch or at a later date. * If however you contribute a patch against a source file which is currently licensed under the GPLv3 and you do not make any statement about applying the patch to GPLv2 sources then another person (or company) cannot take your patch and apply it to the GPLv2 copy of the source file without changing the license on that file to GPLv3. Ie, it is assumed that the person (or company) is backporting the patch from the GPLv3 file to the GPLv2 file, rather than receiving the patch directly from yourself, and as a consequence the GPLv3 license is inherited by the patched file. I hope that this makes things clear. Cheers Nick