It doesn't. But if the existing file is licensed under MIT and no new notice is placed with the copyright addition then I think the common convention is to assume that the new changes are licensed under the same existing license. Now changing the license would be a different matter and in that case a new notice in the file would be needed. Sent from my iPhone > On May 30, 2014, at 12:19 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi Garrett, > >> Well, I'm not the package maintainers. But for those packages that >> I do maintain (illumos, mangos, etc.) I ask that contributors >> update the copyright statements in the files that they are updating >> as part of their patch submission. > > Are you sure it works that way? I am not a lawyer, but my feeling is > that claiming a copyright on the file doesn't necessarily mean you are > providing your patched under the MIT license... > > Martin > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTiDEEAAoJENTpVjxCNN9Y9VwH/28ihWcGHbvgVIBTA5H2hzOk > mKty/GLUtt2qRMm9oo7Hu5nmCyI6JxMtd4RCLs8Wz11RdTPTLs0N3+iPMfI7ZNhc > Rf3uv/9l6sC6uamCC5EsZByrqYenGKDOG72UOxdFuixx66Wo1bH71niqK5cKF0Ti > 9IxB8LL5t21bXZrcOc1MPYoc/f5Mz1zerqjjxWQL844lycSZzIfNNy0bNSrqf8TZ > dTvN/Tw3mc6T6d+ck+yqvdXOpZqnRam961XIiN6OVDyKMPEYWPAfrC+0xiL51k/l > EXKGs3uezaLPfzFwvy0QQoN7VefHqx1vdibyN0dI3H2sii6/CPR4rKHbW0QQ2Yg= > =BJT/ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >