> -----Original Message-----
> From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> 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
