On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
It looks fine to me, but if it's still a draft then I think it would be useful to use a wording less vague than "misleading author or version information".
Agreed. It's fine to say that the package must be labelled as to modifications made, but this phrasing seems to open the door to api-level requirements (like the filename or in-code version string cannot be "misleading", whatever that means).
-- Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>