Message-Id: <199809021408.QAA36460@ieva06.lanet.lv> From: "Andris Pavenis" To: DJ Delorie Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:12:11 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: egcs-1.1 CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: <199809021256.IAA01589@delorie.com> References: <199809021350 DOT PAA29144 AT ieva06 DOT lanet DOT lv> (pavenis AT lanet DOT lv) Precedence: bulk Date sent: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:56:58 -0400 (EDT) From: DJ Delorie Subject: Re: egcs-1.1 > > The GPL *requires* that sources be uploaded. You don't have a choice > about this. Although, the patch idea is a good one. Better yet, get > the djgpp patches *into* the egcs release, so that they'll be > maintained and distributed with the sources. > Only question: is it not enough to give script that exactly rebuilds sources I used from original GNU distribution? There will no proprietory software needed for that, only GNU tools. I think that is not against GPL: ------------------------- citation ---------------------------------------------------------- For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the source code. And you must show them these terms so they ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ know their rights. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I'm giving script that exactly builds sources from original GNU sources with using GNU tools (bash,sed,autoconf, etc) than I think GPL is not violated as user can get sources identical to my ones. About including changes into release: about some changes it is possible but not about all as I (similary than in ports of gcc-2.8.X) had to rename include files in libio, libstdc++ and libg++ which of course will not be accepted. Andris