Sorry for top-posting, but it's a quick one.
Abbreviations causes confusion.
If you are going to write a huge email anyways, please take the time to
write out the words properly.
Your communication would be a lot more clear, and you might get your point
across more effectively.
On Wed, 22 Nov 20
If you are building a package that tracks the master branch of git, you
want to build the latest version of it.
You could also track various branches or tags in the package as well. In
each case, the assumption is that you would want to build the latest commit
in that branch.
This is mostly usefu
stributed to you, and the
lines in the patch only refers to a section of code you already have. So,
the lines in the patch file are explicitly covered by the copyright of the
source that is getting patched.
No one is pulling a fast one, and no source is being distributed without
it's original licences.
I may not be a lawyer, but many highly paid lawyers have looked at patch
files in great detail for decades, and could not find any reason to sue
anyone that has made patch files, ever.
So, my unqualified position is that we are OK to distribute patches to make
software work.
Kind regards,
-Evert Vorster-
