From: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
To: <david.lang@digitalinsight.com>
Cc: <dana.lacoste@peregrine.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented?
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:19:02 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030120201904.AAA25148@shell.webmaster.com@whenever> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301201129510.6894-100000@dlang.diginsite.com>
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:31:53 -0800 (PST), David Lang wrote:
>so are you saying it's illegal for an opensource project to use a
>commercial version control system, or that use of such a version
>control
>system by a GPL project forces the company to GPL their version
>control system?
I don't understand how I can be clearer than I've already been. The
GPL requires you to do some things if you want to distribute
binaries. One of those things is to distribute the source code in the
"preferred form" for modifying it. Thus, if you don't have the source
code in its preferred form for making modifications, you can't
distribute binaries.
This then brings up two more complicated issues.
First, what is the preferred form of a work for making modifications
to it? Here, I argue that if a project is based around a version
control system, then checking out the source code removes vital
metainformation and does not produce the preferred form. The loss of
the check in explanations and change history makes modifications more
difficult.
Second, is distributing useless source is equivalent to distributing
no source at all? Here, I argue that distributing the source in the
preferred form for making modifications to it but such that it cannot
be actually modified without agreeing to a license other than the
GPL, does not meet the GPL's requirements for source distribution.
That's what I'm saying. You can draw whatever conclusions based upon
my arguments that you like. But those are the two arguments I'm
making and I've already posted the justifications for them.
My motive in making these arguments is quite simple. If Congress had
to comply with all of its laws, it'd probably make better laws. So if
the people who choose to apply the GPL to their projects are more
inconveniences by its quirky bits, perhaps they'll choose better
licenses in the future.
I submit that it is impossible to comply with the GPL and distribute
binaries if the preferred form of a work for the purposes of making
modifications to it is in a proprietary file format. This is
tantamount to encrypting the source.
DS
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-01-20 20:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20030119235742.AAA13049%shell.webmaster.com@whenever>
2003-01-20 0:36 ` Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented? Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-01-20 1:05 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-20 14:28 ` Dana Lacoste
2003-01-20 19:00 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-20 19:31 ` David Lang
2003-01-20 20:19 ` David Schwartz [this message]
2003-01-20 20:40 ` John Bradford
2003-01-20 20:48 ` Andreas Dilger
2003-01-20 21:14 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-20 21:58 ` John Bradford
2003-01-20 21:37 ` Sam Ravnborg
2003-01-20 21:41 ` Rik van Riel
2003-01-21 16:04 ` Dana Lacoste
2003-01-21 18:34 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-21 18:49 ` John Bradford
2003-01-21 18:58 ` Sam Ravnborg
2003-01-21 19:27 ` Dana Lacoste
2003-01-21 21:04 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-21 19:51 ` Hua Zhong
2003-01-22 7:10 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-01-22 7:21 ` John Alvord
2003-01-22 15:18 ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-22 15:27 ` Dana Lacoste
2003-01-22 15:38 ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-20 1:46 ` David Lang
2003-01-20 1:52 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-01-21 19:22 Larry McVoy
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-01-21 0:28 Cort Dougan
[not found] <20030120194430.AAA20700%shell.webmaster.com@whenever>
2003-01-20 20:32 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-01-20 21:27 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-21 8:51 ` Horst von Brand
2003-01-20 15:55 Theodore Ts'o
2003-01-20 18:53 ` David Schwartz
[not found] <20030120010504.AAA18836%shell.webmaster.com@whenever>
2003-01-20 1:37 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-01-18 6:22 Jamie Lokier
2003-01-18 4:33 Jamie Lokier
2003-01-18 4:57 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-18 5:10 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-01-18 7:23 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-18 5:02 ` Andrew Morton
2003-01-18 5:15 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-01-18 5:29 ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-18 6:11 ` Tupshin Harper
2003-01-18 6:20 ` Kevin Puetz
2003-01-18 6:39 ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-18 8:09 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-01-18 8:25 ` Andrew Morton
2003-01-18 14:22 ` Roman Zippel
2003-01-19 18:39 ` Andreas Dilger
2003-01-19 18:55 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-01-19 21:50 ` Roman Zippel
2003-01-19 23:26 ` Andreas Dilger
2003-01-19 23:57 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-20 0:20 ` Andreas Dilger
2003-01-20 0:38 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-20 15:52 ` Horst von Brand
2003-01-20 19:43 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-20 19:46 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-21 7:56 ` Horst von Brand
2003-01-20 14:18 ` Roman Zippel
2003-01-22 12:24 ` Matthias Andree
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030120201904.AAA25148@shell.webmaster.com@whenever \
--to=davids@webmaster.com \
--cc=dana.lacoste@peregrine.com \
--cc=david.lang@digitalinsight.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox