Re: Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented?

David Schwartz
2003-01-19T23:48:42Z

On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 16:26:14 -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:

>There is nothing in the GPL which requires anyone to make their
>changes
>available to you the minute they make them. The fact that you have
>access
>to the changes within an hour of when they are made far exceeds the
>requirements in the GPL, which only require that the source code be
>made
>available if you distribute the OBJECT CODE OR EXECUTABLE.

I think you're ignoring the way the GPL defines the "source code".
The GPL defines the "source code" as the preferred form for modifying
the program. If the preferred form of a work for purposes of
modifying it is live access to a BK repository, then that's the
"source code" for GPL purposes.

>There
>are still lots of other ways to get the kernel source.

You are using the conventional meaning of "source code", which is
roughly, "whatever you compile to get the executable". However, this
is not the "source" for GPL purposes. For GPL purposes, the source is
the preferred form of a work for purposes of modifying it.

This means you can't remove meta information that's useful for
modifying because that is not the preferred form. Such meta
information includes whatever is useful for modifying it, such as
revision history and chain of custody.

You can't have two "source"s, one a private repository that you
prefer to use for making changes and the other an "obfuscated" public
version you distribute for GPL compliance which is missing all the
other useful information.

Checking source out of a repository, separating away the revision
history, is an obfuscatory act. The GPL prohibits such source
obfuscation and requires you to distribute the source in whatever is
the actual preferred form for modifying it. Really. Sorry.

DS