Gordon, The thing is that I didn't really used his source for anything on my builds. I t was very much like Charlies skeleton build, I took the source and looked at the build to get an idea of what todo.
But basically I changed everyting from the spec file to the actual install files, I also used Charlies skeleton build so do it mean I have to notify Charlie? Just want to be clear of my understanding of the GPL licence..... Like you say, I have made the source available anyway! Gordon Rowell wrote: > Yep, you should always attempt to: > - Send patches or patched RPMs back to the authors > - Let the authors know when you have packaged something > - Name your patches and patched RPMs sensibly to avoid confusion > (i.e. don't just increment the release number, add a tag to make > it obvious that it's "different") > > Making the source available is usually all that is _required_, but > taking the extra steps means that your changes can be folded back > into future work. However, don't be concerned if the maintainers > reject your changes, or take some time to integrate them - you've > done your part by making them aware that the changes exist. > -- Regards Brandon Friedman Cell:083 408 7840 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.bfconsult.co.za -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
