> So then suppose the tool I use for modifying the source code
> unpacks/decrypts it, allows changes, and then packs/encrypts it
> again. Suppose further that this tool is proprietary and not
> available without onerous licensing requirements. Would you say
> releasing the source code thus packed/encrypted meets the GPL?
It is not the preferred form for editing the source code,
so it is not the real source code as defined by the GPL.
However, this begs another question: the kernel source is GPL'd. But
is the _repository_ at bkbits.net GPL'd?
I believe the contents are all under the GPL.
And if so, do I have the
right to demand a copy of the whole repository whenever I receive a
binary kernel, or is that right restricted to the checked out files
used to compile that kernel?
Whoever distributes a binary kernel to you has the obligation to
offer you the complete source code corresponding to the binary.
Source code not used in producing that binary need not be
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:22 EST