On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:43:42AM +0200, Martin Schr?der wrote: > 2008/4/26 Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Huh? The wishes are gpl; the patch is available so all gpl requirements > > have been met. Why in the world is this being debated? > > > > If your logic was true all linux distributions would be breaking the > > rules because everyone patches stuff. How did you even come up with > > this? > > Have you read section 2 of the GPL lately? > > I agree that for "normal" patches (security fixes etc.) this is not an > issue - but only because nobody cares. These patches still create > modified versions, but it's a gray area. > > I argue that the anti-DRM patch is not a "normal" patch as stated > above but goes further and as such creates a modified version were you > must follow secion 2. > > It boils down to: When is a modification large enough so that section > 2 applies? > > Best > Martin > >
2. a) Yup, there it is, complete with dates: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ports/textproc/xpdf/patches/ b) Yup, we don't want monies for it. c) Not interactive/doesn't apply. Tobias
