Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3CC0142C.3000707@ece.gatech.edu>
Date:	Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:57:16 -0400
From:	Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
X-Accept-Language:	en-us
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
CC:	Corinna Vinschen <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: strange source packaging?
References:	<FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5E7A AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>

Robert Collins wrote:


> And the GPL requires us to document the changes made - if we have the
> patch pre-applied, with no reverse patch, then this isn't the case.
> Asking folk to go elsewhere to get that 'pristine' source puts the onus
> on the upstream to make that available, which we can't do - for the same
> reason that folk that ship cygwin1.dll need to host their own copy of
> the source.


At the risk of wading into yet another GPL argument -- I don't think the 
GPL requires documentation of the entire provenance of changes relative 
to some external source; it's just the polite thing to do.

All the GPL requires is that you distribute THE source that YOU used to 
build THE binary YOU distribute.  That's it.

--Chuck

- Raw text -