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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review