On Thursday 06 April 2006 8:36 pm, Rony Bill wrote:
> This brings to my mind a question about declarations. If a distro > developer takes an official distro package, rips in apart and > re-assembles it with non-compatible but un-modified individual > packages then to what extent is he liable to declare the changes he > has made to the original *package* and on whom does the burden of > proof lie in proving that the packages are original in source code? There is no need for a declaration if he does not want to claim copyright. "Mods" does not include recompiling with some other unstable gpld lib (bye bye MD5 verification). So it is easy to FU the distro and not say anything at all. Which is where trademarks come in. So you cant fork the kernel, fill it with shit and still call it Linux. Well actually you can in Ozzie land where Linus lost the case for trademarking linux - he actually anticipated pricesely this type of activity. > > In this case does the mere declaration of non-modification of > original source codes absolve PCQ of providing any proofs of the > same? The onus of proof is (rightly) on the accuser. -- rgds jtd -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
