Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Andi Kleen]

Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> writes:

<some other obviously wrong already refuted FUD snipped>

> 
> They also violate the GPL by including non-GPL compliant code (openssl and
> the unisys es7000 support) in their tree, so..

When the ES7000 Code was merged we asked Unisys about this and they
agreed to drop the nasty conflicting clauses (in fact it was just 
a mistake on their part - the code was always intended to be GPLed) 
The bogus comment may have leaked out in one or two revisions with 
the daily kernel snapshot.

openssl is only compiled as a module in released kernels, so it is similar to
the PPP BSD compression module.

I would recommend people check their facts and ask first before publicly 
accusing someone of violating the GPL.

-Andi

In the current version the copyright note in es7000.[ch] reads:

 * Copyright (c) 2002 Unisys Corporation.  All Rights Reserved.
 *
 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
 * under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License as
 * published by the Free Software Foundation.
 *
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it would be useful, but
 * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 *
 * Further, this software is distributed without any warranty that it is
 * free of the rightful claim of any third person regarding infringement
 * or the like.  Any license provided herein, whether implied or
 * otherwise, applies only to this software file.  Patent licenses, if
 * any, provided herein do not apply to combinations of this program with
 * other software, or any other product whatsoever.
 *
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
 * with this program; if not, write the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59
 * Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston MA 02111-1307, USA.
 *
 * Contact information: Unisys Corporation, Township Line & Union Meeting 
 * Roads-A, Unisys Way, Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, 19424, or:
 *
 * http://www.unisys.com

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> openssl is only compiled as a module in released kernels, so it is similar to
> the PPP BSD compression module.

It compiles parts of openssl which explicitly have a license that conflicts
with the GPL when CONFIG_PPP=y.  The bsd_comp stuff was only compilable as
module.

> In the current version the copyright note in es7000.[ch] reads:
> 
>  * Copyright (c) 2002 Unisys Corporation.  All Rights Reserved.
>  *
>  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
>  * under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License as
>  * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>  *
>  * This program is distributed in the hope that it would be useful, but
>  * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>  * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
>  *
>  * Further, this software is distributed without any warranty that it is
>  * free of the rightful claim of any third person regarding infringement


>  * or the like.  Any license provided herein, whether implied or
>  * otherwise, applies only to this software file.  Patent licenses, if
>  * any, provided herein do not apply to combinations of this program with
>  * other software, or any other product whatsoever.

I don't think this clause is GPL-compliant.  But I'm not a lawyer, so..

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Andi Kleen]

On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 03:28:40PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > openssl is only compiled as a module in released kernels, so it is similar to
> > the PPP BSD compression module.
> 
> It compiles parts of openssl which explicitly have a license that conflicts
> with the GPL when CONFIG_PPP=y.  The bsd_comp stuff was only compilable as
> module.

I guess you meant CONFIG_CIPHER_TWOFISH, not CONFIG_PPP. 

Yes it can be compiled in, but UnitedLinux does not do so - the kernel
rpm compiles it as a module.

-Andi

RE: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Protasevich, Natalie]

>Unisys gave people their code to use GPL. At worst the mythical 'suse evil
>empire' forgot to fix a comment or two. (comment from Alan Cox)


I can explain what happened with Unisys GPL: Unisys intended to give the
souce out under GPL, but we didn't know exactly how to do this. So, we just
copied the clauses from some other source (I believe it was some IBM
authored file) and used it. Even though it looked like a good way to go,
SuSE asked us to fix some wording so it serve better to expression of GPL. I
realize that when it come to companies not individuals giving out their code
under GPL, all sorts of problems can come up and everyone is understandably
careful... 

Well, maybe, someone needs to establish an unquestionable wording so
everyone can use it. We would be happy to change our license any time to
make it compliant.


-Natalie Protasevich
Unisys

-----Original Message-----
From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@infradead.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 7:29 AM
To: Andi Kleen
Cc: Christoph Hellwig; jgarzik@pobox.com; mantel@suse.de;
Natalie.Protasevich@UNISYS.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?


On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> openssl is only compiled as a module in released kernels, so it is similar
to
> the PPP BSD compression module.

It compiles parts of openssl which explicitly have a license that conflicts
with the GPL when CONFIG_PPP=y.  The bsd_comp stuff was only compilable as
module.

> In the current version the copyright note in es7000.[ch] reads:
> 
>  * Copyright (c) 2002 Unisys Corporation.  All Rights Reserved.
>  *
>  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
>  * under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License as
>  * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>  *
>  * This program is distributed in the hope that it would be useful, but
>  * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>  * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
>  *
>  * Further, this software is distributed without any warranty that it is
>  * free of the rightful claim of any third person regarding infringement


>  * or the like.  Any license provided herein, whether implied or
>  * otherwise, applies only to this software file.  Patent licenses, if
>  * any, provided herein do not apply to combinations of this program with
>  * other software, or any other product whatsoever.

I don't think this clause is GPL-compliant.  But I'm not a lawyer, so..

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Nicholas Berry]

>>> Cort Dougan <cort@fsmlabs.com> 01/09/03 07:36PM >>>
> If people starting doing that what would be have to argue about?

Lets see:

Calling Linux GNU/Linux
Calling Hurd Linux/Hurd
Calling my mother a computer illiterate bimbo.
BK.

That should do for now.

Nik

} Why don't you _read_ the GPL instead of making wrong statements?

UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Jeff Garzik]

Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
[to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]

AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
binaries...  which is a very obvious GPL violation.

I'm also surprised the even-more-pro-GPL-than-me people have not jumped
on UnitedLinux for not distributing source code.

	Jeff, looking for useful [rumored] drivers/net patches

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Philip Dodd]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
> 
> AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
> binaries...  which is a very obvious GPL violation.
> 
> I'm also surprised the even-more-pro-GPL-than-me people have not jumped
> on UnitedLinux for not distributing source code.
> 
> 	Jeff, looking for useful [rumored] drivers/net patches
> 

With all due respect, I believe that the terms of the GPL only require 
them to make it available to people who have the binaries, and only then 
upon request.

What exactly do you mean by "are not distributing"?

Cheers,

Philip

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Adrian Bunk]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 11:45:34PM +0100, Philip Dodd wrote:

> With all due respect, I believe that the terms of the GPL only require 
> them to make it available to people who have the binaries, and only then 
> upon request.
>...

Why don't you _read_ the GPL instead of making wrong statements?

Section 3 clearly states that your "upon request" is wrong, the part 
that matches here is:

    b) Accompany it 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, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

 
> Cheers,
> 
> Philip

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Cort Dougan]

If people starting doing that what would be have to argue about?

} Why don't you _read_ the GPL instead of making wrong statements?

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[John Jasen]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Philip Dodd wrote:

> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> > [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]

if they supply the kernel source rpm, how are they in violation? Since you 
can compile a kernel from the source rpm.

Then again, I shouldn't be feeding another open-source-uber-alles 
flamefest on lkml, should I?

-- 
-- John E. Jasen (jjasen@realityfailure.org)
-- User Error #2361: Please insert coffee and try again.

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Jeff Garzik]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 09:40:50PM -0500, John Jasen wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Philip Dodd wrote:
> 
> > Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> > > [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
> 
> if they supply the kernel source rpm, how are they in violation? Since you 
> can compile a kernel from the source rpm.

Read the GPL :)  The source code "preferred form" is clearly not an
on-disk kernel tree with no information about the changes [patches]
that were processed in a specific sequence, to produce that end result.

Anyway, I would rather the thread die, since it is clear that they are
_not_ in violation of the GPL, and the source code is available.  :)

	Jeff

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Samuel Flory]

Jeff Garzik wrote:

>On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 09:40:50PM -0500, John Jasen wrote:
>  
>
>>On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Philip Dodd wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
>>>>[to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
>>>>        
>>>>
>>if they supply the kernel source rpm, how are they in violation? Since you 
>>can compile a kernel from the source rpm.
>>    
>>
>
>Read the GPL :)  The source code "preferred form" is clearly not an
>on-disk kernel tree with no information about the changes [patches]
>that were processed in a specific sequence, to produce that end result.
>
>  
>

  Actually the reverse could be much more easily said to be true.  If 
they only supplied the src.rpm,  and not the source rpm more people 
would scream than the reverse.   The number of people who know how to 
produce a custom kernel from a src.rpm is fairly limited.  Keep in mind 
most of UL's customer are not kernel hackers.


   Of course the correct thing to do is simply provide both and make 
people happy.  A determined person can still get what ever they want out 
of either form.  Making it hard just leads to your customers and the 
community hating you.

-- 
There is no such thing as obsolete hardware.
Merely hardware that other people don't want.
(The Second Rule of Hardware Acquisition)
Sam Flory  <sflory@rackable.com>

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Cort Dougan]

Have you actually asked for the source?

} Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
} [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
} 
} AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
} binaries...  which is a very obvious GPL violation.
} 
} I'm also surprised the even-more-pro-GPL-than-me people have not jumped
} on UnitedLinux for not distributing source code.
} 
} 	Jeff, looking for useful [rumored] drivers/net patches
} 
} 
} 
} -
} 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/

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Tom Sightler]

> Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]

Not a source RPM but you can get the source and patches in a tarball at
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/mantel/next/ those tarballs are what are used
to build the RPMS in that directory and all but certain those RPMS are the
same as the ones recently released for testing to
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/supplementary/commercial/Oracle/sles-8/kern
el/

> AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
> binaries...  which is a very obvious GPL violation.

I think the above will get you there and if not I'm sure they will provide
the source if asked (which I think meets the letter of the law in the GPL).
Perhaps they just haven't got them posted in a more obvious location yet.

Later,
Tom

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[GertJan Spoelman]

On Thursday 09 January 2003 23:27, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]

If you look at ftp.suse.com/unitedlinux/1.0/src there is a file 
kernel-source....nosrc.rpm which contains all the kernel patches.

> AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
> binaries...  which is a very obvious GPL violation.
>
> I'm also surprised the even-more-pro-GPL-than-me people have not jumped
> on UnitedLinux for not distributing source code.
>
> 	Jeff, looking for useful [rumored] drivers/net patches
-- 

    GertJan

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

On 2003-01-09T17:27:48,
   Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> said:

> Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]

The complaint is valid, it should be advertised better, I had to look myself,
but I believe that
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/unitedlinux/1.0/src/kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm 
is what you are looking for.

I've forwarded the request because I believe we can and should do better, but
I hope the complaint of a GPL violation has been settled ;-)


Sincerely,
    Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@suse.de>

-- 
Principal Squirrel 
SuSE Labs - Research & Development, SuSE Linux AG
  
"If anything can go wrong, it will." "Chance favors the prepared (mind)."
  -- Capt. Edward A. Murphy            -- Louis Pasteur

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Jeff Garzik]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 12:19:59AM +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2003-01-09T17:27:48,
>    Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> said:
> 
> > Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> > [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
> 
> The complaint is valid, it should be advertised better, I had to look myself,
> but I believe that
> ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/unitedlinux/1.0/src/kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm 
> is what you are looking for.
> 
> I've forwarded the request because I believe we can and should do better, but
> I hope the complaint of a GPL violation has been settled ;-)


Yes, thanks much.

	Jeff

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > > Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> > > [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
> > 
> > The complaint is valid, it should be advertised better, I had to look myself,
> > but I believe that
> > ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/unitedlinux/1.0/src/kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm 
> > is what you are looking for.
> > 
> > I've forwarded the request because I believe we can and should do better, but
> > I hope the complaint of a GPL violation has been settled ;-)
> 
> 
> Yes, thanks much.

So... Do you have everything you want or do you want something more?

									Pavel
-- 
Worst form of spam? Adding advertisment signatures ala sourceforge.net.
What goes next? Inserting advertisment *into* email?

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Jeff Garzik]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 11:38:30AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> > > > [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
> > > 
> > > The complaint is valid, it should be advertised better, I had to look myself,
> > > but I believe that
> > > ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/unitedlinux/1.0/src/kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm 
> > > is what you are looking for.
> > > 
> > > I've forwarded the request because I believe we can and should do better, but
> > > I hope the complaint of a GPL violation has been settled ;-)
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, thanks much.
> 
> So... Do you have everything you want or do you want something more?

I have everything I need, thanks.  I'll be going through the drivers/net
bits in the next week or two, and see what's useful for mainline.

	Jeff

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Jeff V. Merkey]

Jeff,

They only have to provide it if someone asks for it.  I suggest sending them 
a request asking for it to be disclosed and copy LKML on the request.  

:-)

Jeff
(a great name to have)

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 05:27:48PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
> 
> AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
> binaries...  which is a very obvious GPL violation.
> 
> I'm also surprised the even-more-pro-GPL-than-me people have not jumped
> on UnitedLinux for not distributing source code.
> 
> 	Jeff, looking for useful [rumored] drivers/net patches
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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/

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Jeff Garzik]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 04:45:34PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> 
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> They only have to provide it if someone asks for it.  I suggest sending them 
> a request asking for it to be disclosed and copy LKML on the request.  

I had hoped that a member in good standing of the Linux community would
not put such roadblocks in place.  :(


> Jeff
> (a great name to have)

agreed :)

	Jeff

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Jeff V. Merkey]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 05:46:16PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 04:45:34PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Jeff,
> > 
> > They only have to provide it if someone asks for it.  I suggest sending them 
> > a request asking for it to be disclosed and copy LKML on the request.  
> 
> I had hoped that a member in good standing of the Linux community would
> not put such roadblocks in place.  :(


Jeff,

I do not understand what this means.  Just because they did not volunteer it
does not imply some sort of conspiracy.  There are a lot of patches I make
locally for my work, but I don't just throw everyone of them out to the 
whole planet since a lot of them would probably get rejected, and most folks
probably could care less.  At any rate, I was not being an obstructist 
or anything.  Perhaps they overlooked it or perhaps it's available 
somewhere else.  Simplest approach is always the best -- just ask them
and post to LKML so they know other folks are probably interested.

Some of the patches I;ve made to Alan's code I am certain he would look 
at and say something like "well there's goes Jeff again smoking his
pipe" or something -- but of course only in the nicest sort of way.

:-)

Jeff

> 
> 
> > Jeff
> > (a great name to have)
> 
> agreed :)
> 
> 	Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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/

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Aaron T Porter]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 04:45:34PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> They only have to provide it if someone asks for it.  I suggest sending them 
> a request asking for it to be disclosed and copy LKML on the request.  

	Further, they only have to provide the source to those they
distribute the software to. So go buy a copy, ask for the source then come
share with us too.

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Hubert Mantel]

Hi,

On Thu, Jan 09, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]

Sure, it's here:

ftp.suse.com:/pub/unitedlinux/1.0/src/kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm

This RPM contains the individual patches as well as the specfile to create 
the kernel-source.rpm. It's only missing the vanilla kernel source tarball 
in order to save space (this tarball is available on every other ftp 
server in the internet anyway).

For creation of the individual binary kernel RPMs you need the following 
source RPMs which are of course also available:

-rw-r--r--    1 root     root        18972 Oct 21 21:45 k_athlon-2.4.19-111.src.rpm
-rw-r--r--    1 root     root       168055 Oct 21 22:28 k_debug-2.4.19-79.src.rpm
-rw-r--r--    1 root     root       186467 Oct 21 22:04 k_deflt-2.4.19-120.src.rpm
-rw-r--r--    1 root     root       178477 Oct 21 22:04 k_psmp-2.4.19-115.src.rpm
-rw-r--r--    1 root     root       185329 Oct 21 22:21 k_smp-2.4.19-113.src.rpm

> AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
> binaries...  which is a very obvious GPL violation.

Any chance you could check the facts before accusing people publically?

> I'm also surprised the even-more-pro-GPL-than-me people have not jumped
> on UnitedLinux for not distributing source code.

Because they are probably not too lazy to check the facts before offending 
people.

> 	Jeff, looking for useful [rumored] drivers/net patches
                                                                  -o)
    Hubert Mantel              Goodbye, dots...                   /\\
                                                                 _\_v

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

Hubert Mantel <mantel@suse.de> writes:

>ftp.suse.com:/pub/unitedlinux/1.0/src/kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                          ^^^^^^^

Revealing...

	Regards
		Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 10:46:10AM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Hubert Mantel <mantel@suse.de> writes:
> 
> >ftp.suse.com:/pub/unitedlinux/1.0/src/kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                          ^^^^^^^
> 
> Revealing...

Did you ever think UL was more than an OEM agreement + a marketing gag? :)

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Horst von Brand]

Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> said:
> Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
> 
> AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
> binaries...  which is a very obvious GPL violation.

If the binary can be recreated from the source in the kernel-source RPM,
they aren't in violation. Sure, having a look at the non-official patches
they apply would be nice, but not mandated by GPL.
--
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

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Adrian Bunk]

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 ]

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".

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Horst von Brand]

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

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[David Woodhouse]

brand@jupiter.cs.uni-dortmund.de said:
>  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. 

--
dwmw2

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Hubert Mantel]

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

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Alan Cox]

On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 13:15, Hubert Mantel wrote:
> > 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.

I think Dave needs to type "man diff" 8)

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Dave Jones]

On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 04:50:43PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:

 > > 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.
 > 
 > I think Dave needs to type "man diff" 8)

I think Dave needs a diff that allows me to keep as many patches
in sync as bk lets me.  We don't all have your superhuman
patch-fu Alan 8-)

I do periodic GNU diffs of the 'big bundle o' patches'.
There are even split up versions of the patches.
All there to see at k.o
The merges Ive done with bitkeeper to Linus recently
have been diffs already posted to the 2.4 commit list.
Asides from the AGP bits, which were 99% already posted
to linux-kernel. The remainder were trivial things, and they
showed up in -bk an hour or so later anyways..

		Dave

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Horst von Brand]

David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> said:
> brand@jupiter.cs.uni-dortmund.de said:

[...]

> > 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.

That isn't "source" in my book.

> 	"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work
> 	for making modifications to it."

Right. And you can take the kernel-source RPM, and update drivers &c just
as you would on the original source + patchsets

> 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.

That is exactly that: An opinion (or preference) of many (or so you do
think). Not legally binding, AFAIKS...
--
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

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 05:27:48PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
> 
> AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
> binaries...  which is a very obvious GPL violation.

They also violate the GPL by including non-GPL compliant code (openssl and
the unisys es7000 support) in their tree, so..

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Andre Hedrick]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 05:27:48PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Anybody know where the source rpm for UnitedLinux kernel is?
> > [to be distinguished from kernel-source rpm]
> > 
> > AFAICS they are not distributing source code to their published kernel
> > binaries...  which is a very obvious GPL violation.
> 
> They also violate the GPL by including non-GPL compliant code (openssl and
> the unisys es7000 support) in their tree, so..

Send your general counsel, and stop advertising, please!

Google Search: UnitedLinux violating GPL (p1 of 6)

   Searched the web for UnitedLinux violating GPL.  Results 1 - 10 of
   about 136. Search took 0.10 seconds.

This will be number 137 or 138 but who cares!


Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Alan Cox]

On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 10:50, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> They also violate the GPL by including non-GPL compliant code (openssl and
> the unisys es7000 support) in their tree, so..

Unisys gave people their code to use GPL. At worst the mythical 'suse evil
empire' forgot to fix a comment or two.