Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> said:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 11:55:21AM +0100, Horst von Brand wrote:
>
> >...
> > they aren't in violation. Sure, having a look at the non-official patches
> > they apply would be nice, but not mandated by GPL.
>
> [ disclaimer: the UnitedLinux issue in the subject is already resolved ]
Right.
> This is wrong. Section 3 of the GPL says that you have to accompany the
> binaries either with the complete source code (and this includes all
> patches you have applied) or with a "written offer, valid for at least
> three years, to give any third party for a charge no more than your cost
> of physically performing source distribution, a complete
> machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code".
Great! The "complete source code" for the kernel does include each and
every single patch applied since linux-0.0.1? Guess I'll have to complain
to a certain Torvalds then...
Don't be silly. "Complete source code" means the source needed to rebuild
the binary, nothing more. If that is a mangled version derived from some
other source, so be it. You are explicitly allowed to distribute changed
versions, but only under GPL. [IANAL etc, so...]
-- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513 - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 22:00:37 EST