Messages in this thread | | | From | "David Schwartz" <> | Subject | RE: BK kernel workflow | Date | Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:41:43 -0700 |
| |
> The *contents of the source of the tree itself* are indeed GPL, > and I doubt that > anybody argues otherwise.
Good, I'm glad we agree on that.
> The actual method(s) used to *STORE* > said contents > are *NOT* GPL
Of course not.
> - if you argue that the fact of storing the source > in a BK tree > renders the BK itself GPL, then we should stroll over to Redmond > with a laptop > that has a copy of the source untarred into an NTFS filesystem, > and demand that > they cough up the source for NTFS.
No, I'm not arguing that.
> Is anybody arguing that doing that would GPL NTFS? If no, then it > doesn't GPL > any of the BK bits either.
Since nobody made that argument, I'm puzzled why you feel the need to refute it.
Here is the argument I was replying to:
>> What someone does in the privacy of his home is outside the scope of the >> GPL, this means the kernel repository is the private toy of Linus and he >> leaves the decision who may play with him to Larry.
DS
- 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/
| |