Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:15:35 +0100 | From | Hubert Mantel <> | Subject | Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL? |
| |
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 11, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > 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...] > > I disagree. A preprocessed source file with all the variables renamed to > random strings would suffice to rebuild the binary, and is obviously not > acceptable -- being able to rebuild the binary is not the only criterion. > > "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work > for making modifications to it." > > Note that the GPL doesn't say you have to give it in the preferred form for > _building_ it, but the preferred form for _modifying_ it. > > In the opinion of many devlopers, the preferred form of the Linux kernel for > maintaining it is a set of individual patches against the closest > 'official' release, and not a tarball containing already-modified code.
So you are saying that Alan Cox is violating the GPL since he releases his -ac kernels only as one single monolithic patch against the vanilla tree, not as individual patches (like Andrea Arcangeli does for example)?
I think the motivation for this ridiculous thread is very obvious.
> dwmw2 -o) Hubert Mantel Goodbye, dots... /\\ _\_v - 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/
| |