[darcs-users] Re: how to redistribute darcs+Eclipse

[Ketil Malde]

Max Battcher <me at worldmaker.net> writes:

>> (I may be totally off base here, but if not, this could be
>> an argument for the "pull" model rather than "send" -- "pull" would of
>> course get its changes from a repository that includes the licencing
>> information, the "send" is just the patch.)

> Ah, but "darcs send" (in most instances) performs an inventory (and
> motd?) "pull", and supposedly, somewhere along the line in order to
> create the patch in the first place, the user must have done a "darcs
> get" (or "darcs init"/"darcs pull").

I'm not sure I understand what you mean (either that, or vice versa).

If I get the darcs source, modify, and 'darcs send' it to droundy@,
all he gets is the patch (my name and the patch's number, a file name,
line numbers, and the text I've added to the file), and the context as
a list of previously applied patches.  There is no mention of
licensing anywhere, and we're down to quibbling about whether the list
of patches makes it a derived work, and/or whether "common sense"
dictates that I implicitly GPL'ed it by sending it to the list.  Not
to mention whose jurisdiction gets to decide.

If instead I want David to pull from my repository, it requires me to
publish the repository containing all files, including the full GPL
licence text in the COPYING file or similar.  Thus, if I later claim
that my patch wasn't intended to be GPL'ed, you can point to the fact
that I published it as part of a GPL-licensed program, and that I
published it along with the GPL license text.

-k
-- 
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants