Is this better for tomsrtbt?

[mirabilos]

> > > about 2 years.  Now, guess what libc5.so.5.4.13 file is currently
in use
> > > on the MuLinux distribution?  Yep, the 432,684 byte one I created
about
> > > 2 years ago.  Now, the author of MuLinux does *not* mention that
he used
>
> > This is the foundation of LGPL which libc uses. They have the right
to do
> > this and you can not stop them from doing that as long as you are
using
> > (L)GPL:ed software and make modifications to them.

But you can add a restriction, so everyone has to mention you.
And IIRC no Copyright notice may be removed.

> Of course, I could just be a prick and ask him for the source code.
>
> I don't in point of fact believe that maintainers of distributions
> that grab binaries are actually keeping track of where the binaries
> came from.  I did not in fact make changes to the source, all I did
> was play with Makefiles and config.h files and compiler options and
> stripping tools, so he could in fact just provide me any boilerplate
> libc5.so.5.4.13 archive and it would be the source that qualifies as
> 'the program', but, unless he in fact is tracking where each one of
> the binaries came from, how does he know that?

I guess the config opts dont belong to that. I am distributing the
source
I built it with with it.

> Am I required to provide the *exact* makefile and config.h and compile
> settings that would reproduce the 432,684 object?  I can't do that, I
> have since improved it down to 416,361, and I am *NOT* keeping an RCS
> log of every single config.h and CCFLAGS condition that existed!!!

Did you try # strip -s -R .note -R .comment libc.so.5
It works for me.
And no, I am not keeping logs. (Did you ever meet a programmer who
did not hate to write docu?)

> For that matter, the GPL requires me to provide source for 3 years
> after I distribute something.  Now, it has been 2 years since I
> distributed it.  He is redistributing it now.  What if, 2 years from
> now, someone asks him for the source!  *He* is required to provide it,
> after all, it is within the 3 years since *he* distributed it.  But,
> *I* am no longer required to have kept it around.  So, if he doesn't
> bother to get the source code from where he got the binaries within
> 3 years, he may be stuck in a situation where he is breaking the GPL
> and I am past the window where I have to help him.
>
> What about versions?  If I distributed the "ls" program from fileutils
> version 3.13 2 years ago, do I have to be able to provide the source
to
> exactly 3.13 now, or is 3.14 still 'the program'?  I assume I have to
be
> able to provide the source to *exactly* what I distributed 2 years
ago.
> Now, it adds *enormously* to this if someone is *redistributing* that,
> and they *didn't* get the source code from me 2 years ago.  It means
> that if someone wants the source from them, they'll either say 'sorry,
> I dunno where it came from' or they'll say 'maybe it came from
tomsrtbt
> or slackware or something, ask them'.
>
> -Tom

I hope versions are ok, but I usually add the source.
And if I bring out a new version, I delete the old.

-mirabilos