I believe that many, if not most of the delivered projects require *some* modification.
We used to provide source code packages for just this reason, to satisfy those licenses that required such modifications to be made available. However, all of SFW is now published and is freely available via the repositories and OS.o, so this is no longer a separate requirement. And so, the point is irrelevant. Thomas Preisler wrote: > > > Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> Thomas Preisler wrote: >>> Another question is whether there are any legal implications >>> modifying the code and whether modifying the man page is considering >>> modifying the code. I believe it is a complicating legal factor to >>> change *any* source in the delivery and it may be the real reason >>> why man pages stay as they are in all the GNU ports. I will have to >>> look into that. >> >> Code that does not allow modifications is not open source and will not >> make it past the license review by our lawyers. >> > > I'm no expert in Open Source. I know the GNU license does allow > modifications but the question is what the legal implications are of > making any source modification. And whether changing the man page is > considered making source changes. I don't know. And would it require us > to also ship the modified sources or make them available? I believe that > is usually the requirement. Does anyone know? > > --thomas -- blu "Murderous organizations have increased in size and scope; they are more daring, they are served by the most terrible weapons offered by modern science, and the world is nowadays threatened by new forces which, if recklessly unchained, may some day wreck universal destruction." - Arthur Griffith, 1898 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom
