Is there a license on patches

[Juan Manuel Palacios]

On Nov 9, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Kevin Van Vechten wrote:

>
> On Nov 9, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Landon Fuller wrote:
>
>>> For what it's worth, it's my assumption that any patches I write  
>>> are licensed
>>> under the same license as the project.
>>
>> Er, I should clarify. Licensed under the same license as the  
>> project *that I'm patching*.
>
> I agree, and think it's a natural assumption.  If a patch were  
> covered by different licensing terms, then those terms should have  
> been included in the patch to begin with.
>


	Is this something we can make explicit anywhere in any way? I  
recently wrote the following in the base/HACKING file:

Project naming and copyright attribution:

* "The MacPorts Project" is the string that shall be used whereever  
there's a need to reference our project name, such as in copyright  
notices.
* A developer or contributor is adviced to attribute himself a  
copyright notice if he/she is contributing a full new source file or a  
full new feature
   to an already existing source file in the "base" component of our  
repository.
* An exception to this rule is our Portfiles, since they are partly  
meant for human eyes consumption and the boilerplate header comments  
should be kept
   down to a minimum
* A copyright notice attributed to our group name, "The MacPorts  
Project", should also be added to these source files (if not already  
there) if they're
   being uploaded to the "base" component of our repository, since as  
such they are being contributed to the project.


	But I don't know if we could go as far as requesting/enforcing that  
submitted patches be under the BSD license.

	Regards,....


-jmpp