Re: [RFC] Patches have a license

From: Dave Jones (davej@codemonkey.org.uk)
Date: Mon Jan 27 2003 - 05:47:05 EST

Next message: John Bradford: "Re: [RFC] Patches have a license"
Previous message: Ivan Kokshaysky: "Re: [patch 2.5] VGA IO on systems with multiple PCI IO domains"
In reply to: Balbir Singh: "[RFC] Patches have a license"
Next in thread: John Bradford: "Re: [RFC] Patches have a license"
Reply: John Bradford: "Re: [RFC] Patches have a license"
Reply: Sean Neakums: "Re: [RFC] Patches have a license"
Reply: Andre Hedrick: "Re: [RFC] Patches have a license"
Reply: Helge Hafting: "Re: [RFC] Patches have a license"
Reply: dean gaudet: "Re: [RFC] Patches have a license"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 01:58:40AM -0800, Balbir Singh wrote:
> I would request everyone to post their patches with
> a license, failing which it should be assumed that
> the license is GPL.

Surely the license of the diff matches the license of the
code it is patching ?

Dave

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: John Bradford: "Re: [RFC] Patches have a license"
Previous message: Ivan Kokshaysky: "Re: [patch 2.5] VGA IO on systems with multiple PCI IO domains"
In reply to: Balbir Singh: "[RFC] Patches have a license"
Next in thread: John Bradford: "Re: [RFC] Patches have a license"
Reply: John Bradford: "Re: [RFC] Patches have a license"
Reply: Sean Neakums: "Re: [RFC] Patches have a license"
Reply: Andre Hedrick: "Re: [RFC] Patches have a license"
Reply: Helge Hafting: "Re: [RFC] Patches have a license"
Reply: dean gaudet: "Re: [RFC] Patches have a license"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 31 2003 - 22:00:16 EST