Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: strange source packaging? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:05:53 +1000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Robert Collins" To: "Charles Wilson" Cc: "Corinna Vinschen" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g3JDc5i04590 > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu] > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 10:57 PM > To: Robert Collins > Cc: Corinna Vinschen > Subject: Re: strange source packaging? > > > 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. Section 2a is pretty clear. Rob