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


> > 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.

That isn't "source" in my book.

> "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work
> for making modifications to it."

Right. And you can take the kernel-source RPM, and update drivers &c just
as you would on the original source + patchsets

> 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.

That is exactly that: An opinion (or preference) of many (or so you do
think). Not legally binding, AFAIKS...
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:0.111 / U:1.988 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site