[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented?
    On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 05:10:12 +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:

    >It doesn't require that you distribute the tools for editing the
    >source, though. For example I believe it is fine to distribute a
    >program for Microsoft Visual Studio, in the form of the files you
    >would actually use with Visual Studio, even though the format of
    >some of those files is not documented.

    So then suppose the tool I use for modifying the source code
    unpacks/decrypts it, allows changes, and then packs/encrypts it
    again. Suppose further that this tool is proprietary and not
    available without onerous licensing requirements. Would you say
    releasing the source code thus packed/encrypted meets the GPL?

    If not, then what would? The decrypted/unpacked form of the source
    is not the preferred form for making modifications.

    It seems to me that if you can't distribute the source in its
    preferred form for modification such that it can actually be used and
    modified without complying with some other more restrictive license,
    you cannot comply with the GPL. The alternative is to say that you
    can distribute utterly useless "source" and still comply with the

    Anyway, this has veered off-topic for this list. I apologize for


    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:0.021 / U:34.896 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site