[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:0.100 / U:1.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site