Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [Joerg Schilling] > > I did give an example: use what(1) on a binary compiled from the > > source before and after the change to see the difference. > > > > If you did look at the SVN, if you did have a look at the most recent > > changes..... it would be easy to understand what happened. > > We have removed a lot of _duplicate_ copyright notices from source > files, as a cleanup. We have not removed copyright information from > source files; it is still there, just not repeated 2 or 3 times per > file, as it was in some cases before.
This is wrong: You did remove _code_ that is intended to keep Copyright/version information in binaries. The removed text is needed in order to allow people to check the original version information and Copyright for all relevent files using the what(1) command. I am not aware of a single case in the past 25 years where someone did try to remove this kind of information. > Users typically look for copyright notices in documentation and other > materials that come with a package. (I note that the manpage we got Do not reason from your behavior on others..... > And speaking of my local Linux system, let me check for copyright > notices in SCCS strings. The only user binaries aside from yours that > embed copyright notices in that way are: iputils ping, netkit telnet, > tcsh, aumix, vixie cron, gprof, lsof, util-linux pg, xdaliclock, and > the ncftp suite. That is 11 packages (counting yours) out of over 1200 > installed packages -- about 1%. By number of binaries it's on the > order of 25 out of 2600 -- again, 1%. Noce to see that wou admit that nobody tries to remove this information in case it is present! Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily