Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724
--- Comment #26 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> 2009-03-06
13:49:58 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #24)
I didn't ask about a hypothetical binary C. To use your
terminology for this
thought experiment, do the terms of the GPL apply to file A, if file A and only
file A, is obtained from pjp's djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz, which includes a copy of
v3 of the GPL?
Not solely by inclusion of COPYING, no, but upon first change, yes. Even if
that change is the inclusion of the GPL license notice in the code's header.
To my knowledge, the last release of djbdns was 8 years ago and he
did not
issue a new release when he abandoned his copyright.
I stand corrected (on this point).
I did not say his copyright statement should be retained. I'm
just trying to
say that when it is removed (as it already has been), his declaration at
http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
should be referenced explicitly.
Indeed, but this is a "should", rather than a "must". It would be
polite to do
so.
To bring this back on topic, please make sure you've got this patch applied:
http://marc.info/?l=djbdns&m=123613000920446&w=2
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.