Konstantinos, Steve, I think that it depends on how you interpret "plainly mark". I can imagine several ways of doing this
- Naming the (binary) package explicitly - install an additional README file / include in the binary package - explicitly named source tar files I think that the original authors did not want derived works being represented as their original work. So, need to avoid any confusion that the Neon enabled version with the original. I'm with Steve, that marking sources, adding another notice etc is enough. Are the original authors still involved? It might be worth asking them... Dave Sent from yet another ARM powered mobile device On 30 Mar 2011, at 01:04, Konstantinos Margaritis <mar...@genesi-usa.com> wrote: > On 30 March 2011 01:45, Steve Langasek <steve.langa...@linaro.org> wrote: >> I don't think this is a correct interpretation of the license. You don't >> have to change a package name to "plainly mark" the source as modified; >> debian/copyright, changelogs, notices in the source files accomplish this. >> This is done for packages all the time, not just for zlib. > > from http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html > > 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be > misrepresented as being the original software. > > I read this then as "you cannot distribute it as a replacement of the > original zlib library". > I'll take your word that it's not the case, but it still is confusing to me. > > Konstantinos > > _______________________________________________ > linaro-dev mailing list > linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
