[nanomsg] Re: MIT Licensing

  • From: Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 07:33:00 -0700

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-----
> 

Other related posts: