Jim Gifford wrote these words on 01/11/07 19:19 CST: > I want to understand what you want here. BLFS is part of LFS, we > represent the LFS license and the BLFS license in our books saying that > we are adapted from that. If you feel you need more representation, show > me what you want. I don't have a problem with adding it.
I want you to do whatever you feel is the "right thing". As I mentioned, it is too small for me to take issue with. I simply noted this today, and made mention. It wasn't meant to shake up the status quo. When folks fork a project, typically it is up front and center that it is forked code from another project. Typically, you don't have to scour through obscure pages (your license page which *nobody* will ever visit as an example) to find attribution. An example is the poppler package. They upfront on *every* page explain the project is a fork and why. Here's an example: http://poppler.freedesktop.org/ Note that the very first paragraph of the home page explains it is a fork. To me, this is the honorable way to do things. YMMV. BTW, don't take what I said as an indication that your attribution method is not honorable, I'm simply saying that the way the Poppler package presents itself is what I think is proper. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.26] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 19:33:00 up 1 day, 19:47, 1 user, load average: 0.45, 0.18, 0.06 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
