Hi,
On Sat, Jan 11, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > 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...]
>
> I disagree. A preprocessed source file with all the variables renamed to
> random strings would suffice to rebuild the binary, and is obviously not
> acceptable -- being able to rebuild the binary is not the only criterion.
>
> "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work
> for making modifications to it."
>
> Note that the GPL doesn't say you have to give it in the preferred form for
> _building_ it, but the preferred form for _modifying_ it.
>
> In the opinion of many devlopers, the preferred form of the Linux kernel for
> maintaining it is a set of individual patches against the closest
> 'official' release, and not a tarball containing already-modified code.
So you are saying that Alan Cox is violating the GPL since he releases his
-ac kernels only as one single monolithic patch against the vanilla tree,
not as individual patches (like Andrea Arcangeli does for example)?
I think the motivation for this ridiculous thread is very obvious.
> dwmw2
-o)
Hubert Mantel Goodbye, dots... /\\
_\_v
-
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 - 22:00:40 EST