Re: GPL violations: make it harder

From: Jeff Epler (
Date: Tue Sep 05 2000 - 21:48:14 EST

On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:23:34PM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> For patches to be licensed otherwise would require that someone
> write some nasty scripts to patch the kernel given explicit line
> numbers, etc... and it is likely possible in theory, but doubtful
> that anyone would ever do it due to the effort involved and the
> brown stuff that would come back at them from an ethical point.
> I'm glad you brought up this point indeed! Good thinking!

Actually, I've considered a form of diff/patch which represented context
and deleted lines by their md5sum. Thus, the diff only contains long hex
strings plus code that I wrote. (My actual desire was to figure out a way
that I could release QuakeC modifications under the GPL, when the base
QuakeC source was not GPL. I hope there's no ethical brown stuff involved
in that desire!)

Or is md5sum(line N of file) a derivative work of file? If so, what duty
do I have under the GPL if I tell you md5sum(line N of GPL'd file)?

God, this stuff gets too weird when you start thinking about it.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:24 EST