From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To: <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com>
Cc: "Manu Abraham" <manu@kromtek.com>,
       "Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: BK kernel workflow
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:41:43 -0700
Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKCEJEPGAA.davids@webmaster.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <418293F3.5050108@nortelnetworks.com>
Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1075
Lines: 26


> 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.

	That's an interesting argument. I think you could argue that a BK
repository is an aggregation of metadata and the kernel source, and
therefore only the kernel source needs to be distributed. IANAL, this
question has now gotten into territory in which I don't feel comfortable
offering an opinion.

	As for the 'preferred form' argument, I think an argument can be made that
the source itself is the preferred form of the work for the purpose of
making modifications to it. One uses the BK repository to *get* the
preferred form. Again, though, one could argue the other side of this --
that it's preferred to have the metadata to make the modifications.

	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/