JS> There is absolutely no doubt that SuSE is violating GPL. JS> JS> /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ JS> Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain JS> that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free JS> software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we JS> want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so JS> that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original JS> authors' reputations. JS> /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ JS> JS> Is very explicit and unabigouous.
This is the explaining preambula. The corresponding sentence in actual terms and conditions is like this: ----- You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. ----- I downloaded cdrecord-2.01a27-21.src.rpm from SuSE 9.1 and had a look at the patches. And yes, the modified files don't carry prominent notices. Most modified files don't carry any notices. There is a big-enough notice at program startup AFAICS: Note: Please send bug reports or support requests to http://www.suse.de/feedback So it's about as good as Debian. Not exatly as good though: Debian seems to define SOURCE_MODIFIED so this displays some additional more prominent notices. J�rg, would it be enough if Suse would define this in their patches (I'm not speaking for Suse, just offering a possible suggestion)? -- Meelis Roos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
