Hi
I am terribly sorry. I obviously shouldn't reply to mail at 02:00 AM,
maybe not even read it.
For some unknown reason, I got the impression that ira said that
the Makefile has mandrake's copyright, something which he didn't
say at all (he said they put their copyright on a perl script
named supermount, which they obviously wrote since the author
didn't).
I have nothing against mandrake, Ira - I never even saw it. I am
sure they are fine people.
Also, as I said, sorry for the old-buggy-notY2Kcompliant elm
I am using, but that is what math.tau has and what I am used to
(they are installing a newer one).
I will try not to post in the next few weeks, as I say too much
nonsence, and also elm is broken.
Still, if the story about the internal format of rpm helped anyone,
I am happy.
didi
Ira Abramov wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Jan 100, Yedidya Bar-david wrote:
>
> > Sorry for another OT post, but the Makefile from the author's patch
> > contains no copyright, seems similar to Stephen Tweedie's original
> > Makefile, and the new source files have this copyright:
>
> so? I missed your point here...
>
> > The entire patch doesn't mention mandrake. They are only mentioned
> > on the author's site (sent previously) as bug reporters.
>
> which is fine, they didn't write the patch themselves, and they are
> honoring the author according to the spirit of the GPL (and any patches
> to the kernel ARE afterall, GPL)
>
> > However, for me - they lost
> > their first chance to make a first good impression. Why the @#$%
> > they had to put their copyright there? it's a trivial file! couldn't
> > they leave it alone, or put the author's copyright there (obviously,
> > that would be Linus - it was copied from a makefile of his, then
> > Stephen Tweedie, probably then Alexis Mikhailov)?
>
> where did they put their copyright? the bit you showed only reffered to
> the authors. I looked at other files in the directory, it's nice and
> consistant, they mention the right people. I find it VERY useful to know
> who wrote the code I'm looking at, in case I want to ask him a
> question. see here, what's wrong with this?
>
> /*
> * linux/fs/supermount/dir.c
> *
> * Original version:
> * Copyright (C) 1995, 1997
> * Stephen Tweedie ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> *
> * from
> *
> * linux/fs/minix/dir.c
> * Copyright (C) 1991, 1992 Linus Torvalds
> *
> * and
> *
> * linux/fs/ext2/dir.c
> * Copyright (C) 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 Remy Card
> *
> * Rewriten for kernel 2.2. (C) 1999 Alexis Mikhailov
> * ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> *
>
> infact {grep -i "mandrake" *} in that directory produces nothing, so how
> do you mean "they had to put their copyright there"?
>
> and that's your reason to hate the entire distribution? you are weird,
> my friend... get a proportion pill.
>
> --
> Ira Abramov ; whois:IA58 ; www.scso.com ; all around Linux enthusiast
> "...you might as well skip the Xmas celebration completely, and instead
> sit in front of your linux computer playing with the
> all-new-and-improved linux kernel version."
> (By Linus Torvalds)
>
>
>
> =================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
> echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
