Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261607AbUJ2Tja (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:39:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261601AbUJ2Tiu (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:38:50 -0400 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.56]:7877 "EHLO zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261607AbUJ2TDe (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:03:34 -0400 Message-ID: <418293F3.5050108@nortelnetworks.com> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:03:15 -0600 X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: Chris Friesen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: davids@webmaster.com CC: Manu Abraham , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: BK kernel workflow References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 952 Lines: 24 David Schwartz wrote: > This position is conditioned on two facts, either: > > 1) Linus does not distribute his BK tree, or > > 2) Linus' BK tree is not a derivative work of the Linux kernel > > If both of these are false, then the tree must be covered by the GPL. I > think 2 is clearly false. The linux tree is certainly a derivative work of itself. The more important (and much more difficult) question is whether the metadata about the tree is a derivative work under the rules of the GPL, or whether it is mere aggregation. I think you could make a compelling argument that the linux kernel history metadata is *not* covered under the GPL, and hence can be restricted by licensing. Chris - 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/