On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 01:26:53AM +0200, Martin Schr?der wrote:
| 2008/4/26 Paul de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| > golden. If you disagree (which I fear), could you please state what
| > part of section 2 you are actually referring to ? What is the problem
| > according to you ?
|
| a) wants the notion in the modified file, i.e. the patch should also
| add a note to the file patched. Otherwise you can not distribute the
| patched files, but only the original sources plus patches plus
| instructions (i.e. ports).
That is what the portstree does.
So what file is modified, exactly ? The binary ? There is no
unmodified binary to begin with, it was compiled and packaged from the
portstree. Also, if the patch would add a comment detailing what the
patche changes, this comment would not end up in the compiled binary.
Specifically separating patches from the (unmodified) source makes
these patches quite clearly and prominently "notices stating that you
changed the [original] files". If you have a close look at the patch
files themselves, you'll see specific dates (even times) of these
changes.
So even if your interpretation of the GPL is correct (which I'm not
denying nor confirming), the portstree and packages are in compliance.
Again, please note that the OpenBSD project does not distribute the
patched files.
Cheers,
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
http://www.weirdnet.nl/
