From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To: <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
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: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKAEJEPGAA.davids@webmaster.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <200410291720.i9THKPas013399@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1235
Lines: 44


> 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/