RE: BK kernel workflow

David Schwartz
2004-10-30T00:52:10Z

> The *contents of the source of the tree itself* are indeed GPL,
> and I doubt that
> anybody argues otherwise.

Good, I'm glad we agree on that.

> The actual method(s) used to *STORE*
> said contents
> are *NOT* GPL

Of course not.

> - if you argue that the fact of storing the source
> in a BK tree
> renders the BK itself GPL, then we should stroll over to Redmond
> with a laptop
> that has a copy of the source untarred into an NTFS filesystem,
> and demand that
> they cough up the source for NTFS.

No, I'm not arguing that.

> Is anybody arguing that doing that would GPL NTFS? If no, then it
> doesn't GPL
> any of the BK bits either.

Since nobody made that argument, I'm puzzled why you feel the need to
refute it.

Here is the argument I was replying to:

>> What someone does in the privacy of his home is outside the scope of the
>> GPL, this means the kernel repository is the private toy of Linus and he
>> leaves the decision who may play with him to Larry.

DS