Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 08:06:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 08:06:48 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:29453 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 08:06:47 -0500 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:15:35 +0100 From: Hubert Mantel To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL? Message-ID: <20030112131535.GA8594@suse.de> References: <200301111634.h0BGYGUt003680@eeyore.valparaiso.cl> <10213.1042313279@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <10213.1042313279@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> Organization: SuSE Linux AG, Nuernberg, Germany X-Operating-System: SuSE Linux - Kernel 2.4.19-4GB X-GPG-Key: 1024D/B0DFF780 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1979 Lines: 42 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 - 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/