[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented?
    On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:31:53 -0800 (PST), David Lang wrote:

    >so are you saying it's illegal for an opensource project to use a
    >commercial version control system, or that use of such a version
    >system by a GPL project forces the company to GPL their version
    >control system?

    I don't understand how I can be clearer than I've already been. The
    GPL requires you to do some things if you want to distribute
    binaries. One of those things is to distribute the source code in the
    "preferred form" for modifying it. Thus, if you don't have the source
    code in its preferred form for making modifications, you can't
    distribute binaries.

    This then brings up two more complicated issues.

    First, what is the preferred form of a work for making modifications
    to it? Here, I argue that if a project is based around a version
    control system, then checking out the source code removes vital
    metainformation and does not produce the preferred form. The loss of
    the check in explanations and change history makes modifications more

    Second, is distributing useless source is equivalent to distributing
    no source at all? Here, I argue that distributing the source in the
    preferred form for making modifications to it but such that it cannot
    be actually modified without agreeing to a license other than the
    GPL, does not meet the GPL's requirements for source distribution.

    That's what I'm saying. You can draw whatever conclusions based upon
    my arguments that you like. But those are the two arguments I'm
    making and I've already posted the justifications for them.

    My motive in making these arguments is quite simple. If Congress had
    to comply with all of its laws, it'd probably make better laws. So if
    the people who choose to apply the GPL to their projects are more
    inconveniences by its quirky bits, perhaps they'll choose better
    licenses in the future.

    I submit that it is impossible to comply with the GPL and distribute
    binaries if the preferred form of a work for the purposes of making
    modifications to it is in a proprietary file format. This is
    tantamount to encrypting the source.


    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:0.029 / U:7.272 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site