On Dec 25, 2007, Tim Josling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 20:54 -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> ... a good example of compliance with the GPL:
>> 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. >> >> a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified >> it, and giving a relevant date. > (Minor quibble) As copyright owner of GCC, the FSF is not bound by the > conditions of the licence it grants in the same way as licencees are > bound. Of course. That's exactly why I wrote "good example". It wouldn't be nice if the FSF itself didn't set the example for others who modify the code to follow. On top of that, I believe whoever modifies the code and publishes the modification, even if just to contribute it to the FSF, is bound by the terms of the GPL, and terefore the code modification carry the required prominent notices. Of course the FSF, being copyright holder, could choose to throw them all away. > This may possibly work when the mailing list entries exist and are > accessible. True, off-line access to resources that are on-line only or even permanently inaccessible doesn't work. Been there, done that, it's a pain to deal with lack of information. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
