This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: strange source packaging?




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:earnie_boyd@yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:20 AM

> <Section 2.a>
> You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices 
> stating that you chaned the files and the date of any change. 
> </Section 2.a>
> 
> A differences file alone doesn't accomplish.  You must state 
> in the file header (a prominent place of notice) that you 
> changed the file.  

Given the definition of a prominent place of notice, it can be argued
that a difference file is just that. It's prominent and states the exact
changes made - in both human and computer readable form no less.

> Back to the subject at hand, source packaging and the con to 
> Robert's argument.  I can in my wisdom download the 
> individual binary and accompaning source.  At that point I 
> should be able to rebuild an exacting duplicate from the 
> source package with supplied scripts found within the source 
> package 

Exactly. 'source package' here can mean more than one file. There is no
requirement in the GPL that the source be provided as a single entity,
just that it be provided in it's entirety. So I don't understand your
reasoning for why a pristine source + patches + cygwin build script does
not meet the criteria. Certianly debian + *BSD ports systems seem to
find it feasible.

> <Section 3, para. 5>
> These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If 
> identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the 
> Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and 
> separate works in themselves, then this License, and its 
> terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute 
> them as separate works.  But when you distribute the same 
> sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the 
> Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms 
> of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend 
> to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part 
> regardless of who wrote it. </Section 3, para 5>

Yup. That's what we are conforming with. 

Rob


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]