Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 18 Jan 2003 07:54:55 +0000 | From | Jamie Lokier <> | Subject | [OFFTOPIC] Is the repository of a GPL'd program itself under the GPL? |
| |
David Schwartz wrote: > So then suppose the tool I use for modifying the source code > unpacks/decrypts it, allows changes, and then packs/encrypts it > again. Suppose further that this tool is proprietary and not > available without onerous licensing requirements. Would you say > releasing the source code thus packed/encrypted meets the GPL?
I think that if you distribute a program in Emacs-Lisp, but you don't provide the Emacs-Lisp interpreter, that is considered ok. If you distribute a program in Visual Basic under the GPL, that is considered ok too. Similarly if it's a GPL'd Excel spreadsheet macro, or a program written in Jonny's own version of Prolog.
However if you distribute obfuscated or encrypted files, then clearly that's not the preferred form for making changes. If it's encrypted, the preferred form obviously includes the decryption key. (And if the code has to be signed to run, it might include the signing key - ooh).
I don't know where the line in the sand stops. It's not something GNU people seem to worry much about, and neither do I as it is usually quite clear cut one way or the other.
-----
About BitKeeper: if it were actually essential, I think you'd have a point. But it isn't.
However, this begs another question: the kernel source is GPL'd. But is the _repository_ at bkbits.net GPL'd? And if so, do I have the right to demand a copy of the whole repository whenever I receive a binary kernel, or is that right restricted to the checked out files used to compile that kernel?
cheers, -- Jamie
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |