On 4/2/06, Charlie Brady wrote: > > Modifying conf-cc is the only way which is guaranteed to comply with DJB's > license conditions. The perl edit script maybe considered as a source > code patch, and binaries built from patched source code may not be > distributed.
I put a distribution section on the daemontools and tcpserver pages with a link to http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html. Granted, this only matters if you want to distribute DJB software, but I'm curious why you think patching conf-cc is okay but error.h isn't? According to http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html: > You may distribute a precompiled package if > > * installing your package produces exactly the same files, > in exactly the same locations, that a user would obtain by > installing one of my packages listed above; I would assume the above prevents one from distributing binaries from either a patched conf-cc or error.h. It only cares about the resulting files, not what file is patched. A patched conf-cc and error.h produce the same binaries for me. If patching conf-cc is "okay" because it's mentioned on http://cr.yp.to/docs/unixport.html#errno and patching error.h produces the same binaries, wouldn't the "precompiled package" be considered the same way? >From http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html, I would assume that dropping the -O2 flag in your echo edit would also violate the "exactly the same files" stipulation. In any event, there's a link to http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html now for those that intend to distribute. I don't :) John
