News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss ... by Nursie on Friday May 12, 2017 @02:15PM (#14326381)
Then any source patch would fall outside of licensing.

It's clearly a derivative work, as described.

Re:A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss ... by Dylan16807 on Saturday May 13, 2017 @08:22AM (#14330592)
Some source patches include significant elements of what they apply to.

Some don't.

Re:A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss ... by geofft on Saturday May 13, 2017 @05:44PM (#14333183)
I think that argument would also imply that you don't need a copyright license to write a sequel to a book (assuming you don't quote the book, but the sequel includes characters / plots from the original book), and I think it's the case that a sequel is a derivative work. So by contradiction, it doesn't matter if the patch to the source includes a nontrivial portion of the source; it's still based on the source either way.
Re:A federal court has denied a pre-trial motion to dismiss ... by Nursie on Sunday May 14, 2017 @09:25PM (#14338482)
That's not the issue at all, it's still a derivative work, regardless of whether it contains much of the original.