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. All the GPL requires is that you distribute THE source that YOU used to build THE binary YOU distribute. That's it. --Chuck