[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: UnitedLinux violating GPL?
    Adrian Bunk <> said:
    > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 11:55:21AM +0100, Horst von Brand wrote:
    > >...
    > > they aren't in violation. Sure, having a look at the non-official patches
    > > they apply would be nice, but not mandated by GPL.
    > [ disclaimer: the UnitedLinux issue in the subject is already resolved ]


    > This is wrong. Section 3 of the GPL says that you have to accompany the
    > binaries either with the complete source code (and this includes all
    > patches you have applied) or with a "written offer, valid for at least
    > three years, to give any third party for a charge no more than your cost
    > of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    > machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code".

    Great! The "complete source code" for the kernel does include each and
    every single patch applied since linux-0.0.1? Guess I'll have to complain
    to a certain Torvalds then...

    Don't be silly. "Complete source code" means the source needed to rebuild
    the binary, nothing more. If that is a mangled version derived from some
    other source, so be it. You are explicitly allowed to distribute changed
    versions, but only under GPL. [IANAL etc, so...]
    Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616
    Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
    Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
    Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.019 / U:12.280 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site