Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Hubert Mantel <mantel@suse.de>]

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