From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Hua Zhong <huaz@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>,
dana.lacoste@peregrine.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented?
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:10:28 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030122071028.GA3466@bjl1.asuk.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CDEDIMAGFBEBKHDJPCLDCEEKCFAA.huaz@sbcglobal.net>
Hua Zhong wrote:
> > First, I would in fact prefer to have the version control
> > information to make changes. The commit comments, for example, may
> > explain the rationale for changes.
>
> These comments are not part of the source. The source has its own comments.
> They are helpful when you try to track the changes, but GPL doesn't require
> releasing the tracking record of a GPL project.
> It only requires releasing the whole source (or diff).
No, a "diff" is _not_ sufficient when releasing a modified binary -
you must provide, or offer to provide, the whole source used to make
that binary.
People differ in what they think the "whole source" means. The GPL
defines what _it_ means by the source code for a work, and that is the
definition you are bound by, but even that definition is understood
differently by different people. It is the nuances of that definition
that are being discussed in this thread.
I agree with Larry that clear boundaries will be found in case law, as
and when they are required, and that meeting minutes and repository
metadata probably are not considered part of the source code.
It is just tough luck that you miss out on useful information.
In addition, even if Linus refused to work with someone who did not
use the repository, that is also tough luck. You have the right to
fork the project; the GPL does not give you the right to work with Linus.
However if there was a project where the repository was _essential_ to
do any meaningful work on the project, I suspect that a court of law
would find that the repository is considered part of the source code
per the GPL's definition.
(Note: I am not a lawyer nor have I paid for any advice.)
> The argument that "BK hosts GPL project so BK has to be GPL'd" is also
> ridiculous.
Please be careful when making logical statements.
Nobody, not even David, has made that argument. His argument is that
"BK hosts GPL project so the repository _of that project_ has to be GPL'd".
It has nothing to do with BK, in fact.
-- Jamie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-01-22 7:01 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
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 [this message]
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=20030122071028.GA3466@bjl1.asuk.net \
--to=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=dana.lacoste@peregrine.com \
--cc=davids@webmaster.com \
--cc=huaz@sbcglobal.net \
--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