5 ms·

You retain the copyright of the patch and can re-use it somewhere else under a different licence. And in turn, the project you submitted it to cannot re-licenc

You retain the copyright of the patch and can re-use it somewhere else under a different licence. And in turn, the project you submitted it to cannot re-licence that patched section of code (e.g. become either GPL licenced) without your permission, as it does not belong to them. (Edit for clarity)

masklinn 8y ago
One issue is under the Berne baseline, even given github's license grant[0], there is no license to make adaptation, arrangement or derivative work. So it's unclear that the patch would even be legal to start with, in the sense that it's either a modification / adaptation of the work or a derivative of it. [0] https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service#...
- littlestymaar 8y ago
  Yes, the patch would be illegal, but the original author still wouldn't have all the rights on it. And it could also be illegal if the original author distributed the amended code elsewhere. Edit: I edited my comment to say “could” instead of “would” because the original author could argue that the author of the patch implicitly gave him the right to redistribute his patch by contributing it to a public repository. I'm not sure it would stand in court, but I'd say it would have a non-null chance of success. But If the author, who initially claimed the project was a learning project, decided to use it commercially, he clearly wouldn't be allowed to use the patch. (and again, it could be different if the patch author willingly contributed to a commercial product).
- GoblinSlayer 8y ago
  Git derives patches from files on disk, so the patch inherits the file's license. Logically you commit files or even the whole source tree, a patch is an optimization detail, which is used to rebuild the source tree at a given point, so it's a matter of what license the source tree has at that point.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    This isn't really relevant to the legal status of a change (i.e. patch) to a proprietary work where the source code is public. The answer is that making the change is already usually copyright infringement (though I think some countries have a concept of private copies being exempt from these types of restrictions). But redistribution of your patch would definitely be copyright infringement because a license to create a derived work was not given to you -- and patches are by definition derived works.

masklinn 8y ago

One issue is under the Berne baseline, even given github's license grant[0], there is no license to make adaptation, arrangement or derivative work. So it's unclear that the patch would even be legal to start with, in the sense that it's either a modification / adaptation of the work or a derivative of it. [0] https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service#...

littlestymaar 8y ago
Yes, the patch would be illegal, but the original author still wouldn't have all the rights on it. And it could also be illegal if the original author distributed the amended code elsewhere. Edit: I edited my comment to say “could” instead of “would” because the original author could argue that the author of the patch implicitly gave him the right to redistribute his patch by contributing it to a public repository. I'm not sure it would stand in court, but I'd say it would have a non-null chance of success. But If the author, who initially claimed the project was a learning project, decided to use it commercially, he clearly wouldn't be allowed to use the patch. (and again, it could be different if the patch author willingly contributed to a commercial product).
GoblinSlayer 8y ago
Git derives patches from files on disk, so the patch inherits the file's license. Logically you commit files or even the whole source tree, a patch is an optimization detail, which is used to rebuild the source tree at a given point, so it's a matter of what license the source tree has at that point.
- cyphar 8y ago
  This isn't really relevant to the legal status of a change (i.e. patch) to a proprietary work where the source code is public. The answer is that making the change is already usually copyright infringement (though I think some countries have a concept of private copies being exempt from these types of restrictions). But redistribution of your patch would definitely be copyright infringement because a license to create a derived work was not given to you -- and patches are by definition derived works.