Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 22:25:30 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, phk@ref.tfs.com Cc: CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-user@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/release/compat20 libgcc.so.261.0.uu Message-ID: <199503140525.WAA04817@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> "Re: cvs commit: src/release/compat20 libgcc.so.261.0.uu" (Mar 14, 2:27pm)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> I doubt the GNU people would be that anal retentive, since we already > >> published the sources for the 2.0-RELEASE on the net... > > >Uhh, you are wrong about that one. They are *very* anal and retentive > >about it since they want *everyone* to be able to get the exact source > >that created the binaries. The Minix folks find this out when Bruce > >made the 1.X binaries available for minix-386 and the archive sites only > >kept the binaries and the diffs. The GNU folks said they were required > > I've never made gnu binaries available for anything. Okay, it wasn't you but maybe it was Glen or the guy at bugs.nosc.mil that made the binaries available. But you did do the original patches, right? > >to keep the sources online as well even though the sources could be gotten > >from other sites. The reasoning was the other sites would delete the > >old sources when the new versions came on line (similar to us deleting 2.0 > >when 2.1 comes on line). > > This restriction seems to have been relaxed for linux. It would take > an archaelogical expedition to find complete sources for everything. Too true. However, I think they are less likely to bring it up with the Linux folks given the GPL status of Linux. Who says that the folks enforcing the GPL are blind, especially given the antagonistic nature at times between the 'BSD-style Copyright' vs the 'GNU-style copyright'. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199503140525.WAA04817>