Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
[to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
binaries... which is a very obvious GPL violation.
I'm also surprised the even-more-pro-GPL-than-me people have not jumped
on UnitedLinux for not distributing source code.
Jeff, looking for useful [rumored] drivers/net patches
Jeff,
They only have to provide it if someone asks for it. I suggest sending them
a request asking for it to be disclosed and copy LKML on the request.
:-)
Jeff
(a great name to have)
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 05:27:48PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
>
> AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
> binaries... which is a very obvious GPL violation.
>
> I'm also surprised the even-more-pro-GPL-than-me people have not jumped
> on UnitedLinux for not distributing source code.
>
> Jeff, looking for useful [rumored] drivers/net patches
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 04:45:34PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
>
> Jeff,
>
> They only have to provide it if someone asks for it. I suggest sending them
> a request asking for it to be disclosed and copy LKML on the request.
I had hoped that a member in good standing of the Linux community would
not put such roadblocks in place. :(
> Jeff
> (a great name to have)
agreed :)
Jeff
Have you actually asked for the source?
} Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
} [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
}
} AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
} binaries... which is a very obvious GPL violation.
}
} I'm also surprised the even-more-pro-GPL-than-me people have not jumped
} on UnitedLinux for not distributing source code.
}
} Jeff, looking for useful [rumored] drivers/net patches
}
}
}
} -
} To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
} the body of a message to [email protected]
} More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
} Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
Not a source RPM but you can get the source and patches in a tarball at
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/mantel/next/ those tarballs are what are used
to build the RPMS in that directory and all but certain those RPMS are the
same as the ones recently released for testing to
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/supplementary/commercial/Oracle/sles-8/kern
el/
> AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
> binaries... which is a very obvious GPL violation.
I think the above will get you there and if not I'm sure they will provide
the source if asked (which I think meets the letter of the law in the GPL).
Perhaps they just haven't got them posted in a more obvious location yet.
Later,
Tom
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
>
> AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
> binaries... which is a very obvious GPL violation.
>
> I'm also surprised the even-more-pro-GPL-than-me people have not jumped
> on UnitedLinux for not distributing source code.
>
> Jeff, looking for useful [rumored] drivers/net patches
>
With all due respect, I believe that the terms of the GPL only require
them to make it available to people who have the binaries, and only then
upon request.
What exactly do you mean by "are not distributing"?
Cheers,
Philip
On Thursday 09 January 2003 23:27, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
If you look at ftp.suse.com/unitedlinux/1.0/src there is a file
kernel-source....nosrc.rpm which contains all the kernel patches.
> AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
> binaries... which is a very obvious GPL violation.
>
> I'm also surprised the even-more-pro-GPL-than-me people have not jumped
> on UnitedLinux for not distributing source code.
>
> Jeff, looking for useful [rumored] drivers/net patches
--
GertJan
On 2003-01-09T17:27:48,
Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> said:
> Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
The complaint is valid, it should be advertised better, I had to look myself,
but I believe that
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/unitedlinux/1.0/src/kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm
is what you are looking for.
I've forwarded the request because I believe we can and should do better, but
I hope the complaint of a GPL violation has been settled ;-)
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Br?e <[email protected]>
--
Principal Squirrel
SuSE Labs - Research & Development, SuSE Linux AG
"If anything can go wrong, it will." "Chance favors the prepared (mind)."
-- Capt. Edward A. Murphy -- Louis Pasteur
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 12:19:59AM +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2003-01-09T17:27:48,
> Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> said:
>
> > Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> > [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
>
> The complaint is valid, it should be advertised better, I had to look myself,
> but I believe that
> ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/unitedlinux/1.0/src/kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm
> is what you are looking for.
>
> I've forwarded the request because I believe we can and should do better, but
> I hope the complaint of a GPL violation has been settled ;-)
Yes, thanks much.
Jeff
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 05:46:16PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 04:45:34PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jeff,
> >
> > They only have to provide it if someone asks for it. I suggest sending them
> > a request asking for it to be disclosed and copy LKML on the request.
>
> I had hoped that a member in good standing of the Linux community would
> not put such roadblocks in place. :(
Jeff,
I do not understand what this means. Just because they did not volunteer it
does not imply some sort of conspiracy. There are a lot of patches I make
locally for my work, but I don't just throw everyone of them out to the
whole planet since a lot of them would probably get rejected, and most folks
probably could care less. At any rate, I was not being an obstructist
or anything. Perhaps they overlooked it or perhaps it's available
somewhere else. Simplest approach is always the best -- just ask them
and post to LKML so they know other folks are probably interested.
Some of the patches I;ve made to Alan's code I am certain he would look
at and say something like "well there's goes Jeff again smoking his
pipe" or something -- but of course only in the nicest sort of way.
:-)
Jeff
>
>
> > Jeff
> > (a great name to have)
>
> agreed :)
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 11:45:34PM +0100, Philip Dodd wrote:
> With all due respect, I believe that the terms of the GPL only require
> them to make it available to people who have the binaries, and only then
> upon request.
>...
Why don't you _read_ the GPL instead of making wrong statements?
Section 3 clearly states that your "upon request" is wrong, the part
that matches here is:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
> Cheers,
>
> Philip
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 04:45:34PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> They only have to provide it if someone asks for it. I suggest sending them
> a request asking for it to be disclosed and copy LKML on the request.
Further, they only have to provide the source to those they
distribute the software to. So go buy a copy, ask for the source then come
share with us too.
If people starting doing that what would be have to argue about?
} Why don't you _read_ the GPL instead of making wrong statements?
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Philip Dodd wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> > [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
if they supply the kernel source rpm, how are they in violation? Since you
can compile a kernel from the source rpm.
Then again, I shouldn't be feeding another open-source-uber-alles
flamefest on lkml, should I?
--
-- John E. Jasen ([email protected])
-- User Error #2361: Please insert coffee and try again.
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 09:40:50PM -0500, John Jasen wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Philip Dodd wrote:
>
> > Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> > > [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
>
> if they supply the kernel source rpm, how are they in violation? Since you
> can compile a kernel from the source rpm.
Read the GPL :) The source code "preferred form" is clearly not an
on-disk kernel tree with no information about the changes [patches]
that were processed in a specific sequence, to produce that end result.
Anyway, I would rather the thread die, since it is clear that they are
_not_ in violation of the GPL, and the source code is available. :)
Jeff
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 09, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
Sure, it's here:
ftp.suse.com:/pub/unitedlinux/1.0/src/kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm
This RPM contains the individual patches as well as the specfile to create
the kernel-source.rpm. It's only missing the vanilla kernel source tarball
in order to save space (this tarball is available on every other ftp
server in the internet anyway).
For creation of the individual binary kernel RPMs you need the following
source RPMs which are of course also available:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18972 Oct 21 21:45 k_athlon-2.4.19-111.src.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 168055 Oct 21 22:28 k_debug-2.4.19-79.src.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 186467 Oct 21 22:04 k_deflt-2.4.19-120.src.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 178477 Oct 21 22:04 k_psmp-2.4.19-115.src.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 185329 Oct 21 22:21 k_smp-2.4.19-113.src.rpm
> AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
> binaries... which is a very obvious GPL violation.
Any chance you could check the facts before accusing people publically?
> I'm also surprised the even-more-pro-GPL-than-me people have not jumped
> on UnitedLinux for not distributing source code.
Because they are probably not too lazy to check the facts before offending
people.
> Jeff, looking for useful [rumored] drivers/net patches
-o)
Hubert Mantel Goodbye, dots... /\\
_\_v
Hubert Mantel <[email protected]> writes:
>ftp.suse.com:/pub/unitedlinux/1.0/src/kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
Revealing...
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> said:
> Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
>
> AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
> binaries... which is a very obvious GPL violation.
If the binary can be recreated from the source in the kernel-source RPM,
they aren't in violation. Sure, having a look at the non-official patches
they apply would be nice, but not mandated by GPL.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 11:55:21AM +0100, Horst von Brand wrote:
>...
> they aren't in violation. Sure, having a look at the non-official patches
> they apply would be nice, but not mandated by GPL.
[ disclaimer: the UnitedLinux issue in the subject is already resolved ]
This is wrong. Section 3 of the GPL says that you have to accompany the
binaries either with the complete source code (and this includes all
patches you have applied) or with a "written offer, valid for at least
three years, to give any third party for a charge no more than your cost
of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code".
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
>>> Cort Dougan <[email protected]> 01/09/03 07:36PM >>>
> If people starting doing that what would be have to argue about?
Lets see:
Calling Linux GNU/Linux
Calling Hurd Linux/Hurd
Calling my mother a computer illiterate bimbo.
BK.
That should do for now.
Nik
} Why don't you _read_ the GPL instead of making wrong statements?
Jeff Garzik wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 09:40:50PM -0500, John Jasen wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Philip Dodd wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
>>>>[to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
>>>>
>>>>
>>if they supply the kernel source rpm, how are they in violation? Since you
>>can compile a kernel from the source rpm.
>>
>>
>
>Read the GPL :) The source code "preferred form" is clearly not an
>on-disk kernel tree with no information about the changes [patches]
>that were processed in a specific sequence, to produce that end result.
>
>
>
Actually the reverse could be much more easily said to be true. If
they only supplied the src.rpm, and not the source rpm more people
would scream than the reverse. The number of people who know how to
produce a custom kernel from a src.rpm is fairly limited. Keep in mind
most of UL's customer are not kernel hackers.
Of course the correct thing to do is simply provide both and make
people happy. A determined person can still get what ever they want out
of either form. Making it hard just leads to your customers and the
community hating you.
--
There is no such thing as obsolete hardware.
Merely hardware that other people don't want.
(The Second Rule of Hardware Acquisition)
Sam Flory <[email protected]>
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:46:10AM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Hubert Mantel <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >ftp.suse.com:/pub/unitedlinux/1.0/src/kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>
> Revealing...
Did you ever think UL was more than an OEM agreement + a marketing gag? :)
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 05:27:48PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
>
> AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
> binaries... which is a very obvious GPL violation.
They also violate the GPL by including non-GPL compliant code (openssl and
the unisys es7000 support) in their tree, so..
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 05:27:48PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> > [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
> >
> > AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
> > binaries... which is a very obvious GPL violation.
>
> They also violate the GPL by including non-GPL compliant code (openssl and
> the unisys es7000 support) in their tree, so..
Send your general counsel, and stop advertising, please!
Google Search: UnitedLinux violating GPL (p1 of 6)
Searched the web for UnitedLinux violating GPL. Results 1 - 10 of
about 136. Search took 0.10 seconds.
This will be number 137 or 138 but who cares!
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> writes:
<some other obviously wrong already refuted FUD snipped>
>
> They also violate the GPL by including non-GPL compliant code (openssl and
> the unisys es7000 support) in their tree, so..
When the ES7000 Code was merged we asked Unisys about this and they
agreed to drop the nasty conflicting clauses (in fact it was just
a mistake on their part - the code was always intended to be GPLed)
The bogus comment may have leaked out in one or two revisions with
the daily kernel snapshot.
openssl is only compiled as a module in released kernels, so it is similar to
the PPP BSD compression module.
I would recommend people check their facts and ask first before publicly
accusing someone of violating the GPL.
-Andi
In the current version the copyright note in es7000.[ch] reads:
* Copyright (c) 2002 Unisys Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
* under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License as
* published by the Free Software Foundation.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it would be useful, but
* WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
*
* Further, this software is distributed without any warranty that it is
* free of the rightful claim of any third person regarding infringement
* or the like. Any license provided herein, whether implied or
* otherwise, applies only to this software file. Patent licenses, if
* any, provided herein do not apply to combinations of this program with
* other software, or any other product whatsoever.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
* with this program; if not, write the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59
* Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston MA 02111-1307, USA.
*
* Contact information: Unisys Corporation, Township Line & Union Meeting
* Roads-A, Unisys Way, Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, 19424, or:
*
* http://www.unisys.com
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 10:50, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> They also violate the GPL by including non-GPL compliant code (openssl and
> the unisys es7000 support) in their tree, so..
Unisys gave people their code to use GPL. At worst the mythical 'suse evil
empire' forgot to fix a comment or two.
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> openssl is only compiled as a module in released kernels, so it is similar to
> the PPP BSD compression module.
It compiles parts of openssl which explicitly have a license that conflicts
with the GPL when CONFIG_PPP=y. The bsd_comp stuff was only compilable as
module.
> In the current version the copyright note in es7000.[ch] reads:
>
> * Copyright (c) 2002 Unisys Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
> *
> * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> * under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License as
> * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> *
> * This program is distributed in the hope that it would be useful, but
> * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
> *
> * Further, this software is distributed without any warranty that it is
> * free of the rightful claim of any third person regarding infringement
> * or the like. Any license provided herein, whether implied or
> * otherwise, applies only to this software file. Patent licenses, if
> * any, provided herein do not apply to combinations of this program with
> * other software, or any other product whatsoever.
I don't think this clause is GPL-compliant. But I'm not a lawyer, so..
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 03:28:40PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > openssl is only compiled as a module in released kernels, so it is similar to
> > the PPP BSD compression module.
>
> It compiles parts of openssl which explicitly have a license that conflicts
> with the GPL when CONFIG_PPP=y. The bsd_comp stuff was only compilable as
> module.
I guess you meant CONFIG_CIPHER_TWOFISH, not CONFIG_PPP.
Yes it can be compiled in, but UnitedLinux does not do so - the kernel
rpm compiles it as a module.
-Andi
Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> said:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 11:55:21AM +0100, Horst von Brand wrote:
>
> >...
> > they aren't in violation. Sure, having a look at the non-official patches
> > they apply would be nice, but not mandated by GPL.
>
> [ disclaimer: the UnitedLinux issue in the subject is already resolved ]
Right.
> This is wrong. Section 3 of the GPL says that you have to accompany the
> binaries either with the complete source code (and this includes all
> patches you have applied) or with a "written offer, valid for at least
> three years, to give any third party for a charge no more than your cost
> of physically performing source distribution, a complete
> machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code".
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...]
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
[email protected] said:
> 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.
--
dwmw2
>Unisys gave people their code to use GPL. At worst the mythical 'suse evil
>empire' forgot to fix a comment or two. (comment from Alan Cox)
I can explain what happened with Unisys GPL: Unisys intended to give the
souce out under GPL, but we didn't know exactly how to do this. So, we just
copied the clauses from some other source (I believe it was some IBM
authored file) and used it. Even though it looked like a good way to go,
SuSE asked us to fix some wording so it serve better to expression of GPL. I
realize that when it come to companies not individuals giving out their code
under GPL, all sorts of problems can come up and everyone is understandably
careful...
Well, maybe, someone needs to establish an unquestionable wording so
everyone can use it. We would be happy to change our license any time to
make it compliant.
-Natalie Protasevich
Unisys
-----Original Message-----
From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 7:29 AM
To: Andi Kleen
Cc: Christoph Hellwig; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> openssl is only compiled as a module in released kernels, so it is similar
to
> the PPP BSD compression module.
It compiles parts of openssl which explicitly have a license that conflicts
with the GPL when CONFIG_PPP=y. The bsd_comp stuff was only compilable as
module.
> In the current version the copyright note in es7000.[ch] reads:
>
> * Copyright (c) 2002 Unisys Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
> *
> * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> * under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License as
> * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> *
> * This program is distributed in the hope that it would be useful, but
> * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
> *
> * Further, this software is distributed without any warranty that it is
> * free of the rightful claim of any third person regarding infringement
> * or the like. Any license provided herein, whether implied or
> * otherwise, applies only to this software file. Patent licenses, if
> * any, provided herein do not apply to combinations of this program with
> * other software, or any other product whatsoever.
I don't think this clause is GPL-compliant. But I'm not a lawyer, so..
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
David Woodhouse <[email protected]> said:
> [email protected] 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 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 13:15, Hubert Mantel wrote:
> > 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.
I think Dave needs to type "man diff" 8)
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 04:50:43PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I think Dave needs to type "man diff" 8)
I think Dave needs a diff that allows me to keep as many patches
in sync as bk lets me. We don't all have your superhuman
patch-fu Alan 8-)
I do periodic GNU diffs of the 'big bundle o' patches'.
There are even split up versions of the patches.
All there to see at k.o
The merges Ive done with bitkeeper to Linus recently
have been diffs already posted to the 2.4 commit list.
Asides from the AGP bits, which were 99% already posted
to linux-kernel. The remainder were trivial things, and they
showed up in -bk an hour or so later anyways..
Dave
--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 11:38:30AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> > > > [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
> > >
> > > The complaint is valid, it should be advertised better, I had to look myself,
> > > but I believe that
> > > ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/unitedlinux/1.0/src/kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm
> > > is what you are looking for.
> > >
> > > I've forwarded the request because I believe we can and should do better, but
> > > I hope the complaint of a GPL violation has been settled ;-)
> >
> >
> > Yes, thanks much.
>
> So... Do you have everything you want or do you want something more?
I have everything I need, thanks. I'll be going through the drivers/net
bits in the next week or two, and see what's useful for mainline.
Jeff
Hi!
> > > Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> > > [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
> >
> > The complaint is valid, it should be advertised better, I had to look myself,
> > but I believe that
> > ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/unitedlinux/1.0/src/kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm
> > is what you are looking for.
> >
> > I've forwarded the request because I believe we can and should do better, but
> > I hope the complaint of a GPL violation has been settled ;-)
>
>
> Yes, thanks much.
So... Do you have everything you want or do you want something more?
Pavel
--
Worst form of spam? Adding advertisment signatures ala sourceforge.net.
What goes next? Inserting advertisment *into* email?