[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

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
Hubert Mantel Goodbye, dots... /\\
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:0.055 / U:6.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site