From:	"Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	RE: CVS port
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:15:40 +0100
Message-ID:	<NBBBIOJKJBNCHJBEKHLOGEECCCAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1001210094241.700L-100000@is>
Importance:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id FAA32521
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> > Yes.  As long as they're from CVS, they'll eventually become released
> > sources.  Note that this is a personal excemtion I make, and not
> > normally allowed by the GPL.
> 
> ?? Are you saying that GPL frowns on releases based on development 
> snapshots?  Where does it say so?  Whatever sources were used to build 
> the binaries, they would be available as part of the port release, so 
> where's the catch?
Yes, I also thought this was strange. Does that mean that packages that
offer nightly builds are sinning against the GPL?

> > Since you're including full sources anyway, unofficial patches are
> > allowed.  Normally, though, they're discouraged as they make for
> > maintenance headaches.
> 
> I agree.  IMHO, you should only include such patches if they correct a 
> profound bug, and it would be nice to include the patch itself with the 
> source distribution, so that it would be possible to take it out (with 
> "patch -R") and resurrect the original version.
OK - if I decide to incorporate the patch, I'll certainly include a diff
witht the sources so it can be taken out.

- Raw text -