Is this better for tomsrtbt?
eccesys at topmail.de
Sun Apr 22 14:19:25 UTC 2001
> > > about 2 years. Now, guess what libc5.so.5.4.13 file is currently
> > > on the MuLinux distribution? Yep, the 432,684 byte one I created
> > > 2 years ago. Now, the author of MuLinux does *not* mention that
> > This is the foundation of LGPL which libc uses. They have the right
> > this and you can not stop them from doing that as long as you are
> > (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
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
> exactly 3.13 now, or is 3.14 still 'the program'? I assume I have to
> able to provide the source to *exactly* what I distributed 2 years
> 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
> or slackware or something, ask them'.
I hope versions are ok, but I usually add the source.
And if I bring out a new version, I delete the old.
More information about the License-discuss