[Fedora-legal-list] Prominent notice of changes (Was: Suitability of EPICS Open License)

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

>>>>> "TC" == Tom Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> writes:

TC> Free and GPL compatible.

Interesting.  The clause about modified copies carrying prominent
notices isn't completely clear to me. The GPL (v2, at least) requires
that modified _source files_ carry a prominent notice (which is probably
something with which few people actually comply) but this EPICS license
is unclear as to whether it's the source files, the documentation, or
the output of the program itself which must carry the notice.

My reading of the EPICS license would suggest that a README.Fedora file
included in the usual location for documentation would be sufficient
notice, but I'm no lawyer.

Still, for these "prominent notice" things, I wonder if there's any
information anywhere about just how packagers should supply such
notices or exactly what they should do to comply with such licenses.
Does our method of supplying pristine source + patches take care of at
least the GPL requirements?  (I'm sure the smart folks have already
thought of this, of course; I just don't know if it's written down
anywhere.)

 - J<