Re: Switching GAS to GPLv3

["Bernd Jendrissek" <bernd.jendrissek@gmail.com>]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> In my understanding everybody who submits patches to binutils must have
> a copyright assignment to the FSF on file (unless patches are considered
> trivial).
>
> I am I wrong in presuming that a patch contributed under a copyright
> assignment can be implied to cover GPLv2 and GPLv3?
>
> 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.

My assignment (which I have not yet returned - bad me!) includes:
"d) FSF agrees to grant back to Developer, and does hereby grant,
non-exclusive, royalty-free and non-cancellable rights to use the
Works (i.e., Developer's changes and/or enhancements, not the Program
that they enhance), as Developer sees fit; this grant back does not
limit FSF's rights and public rights acquired through this agreement."

The answer to your question, AFAICT, hinges on whether your patch is a
derived work or not (surely it is, otherwise an Evil Empire can do
diff -N -u10000 /src/binutils /emptydir >/tmp/proprietary.diff???) and
if so, what the licence of the derived-from work is.

But if you download a GPLv2 tarball before August and run diff between
it and your subsequent modified copy, then I reckon you can do
whatever you want with that patch, as long as you obey the GPLv2 (due
to the tarball's pre-August licence).  You just can't sue anyone for
what they do with your patch, because only the FSF has the right to do
so.

Then again, IANAL.