Re: BK kernel workflow

Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-10-29T17:32:38Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 874 bytes --]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:41:42 PDT, David Schwartz said:

> This position is conditioned on two facts, either:
>
> 1) Linus does not distribute his BK tree, or
>
> 2) Linus' BK tree is not a derivative work of the Linux kernel
>
> If both of these are false, then the tree must be covered by the GPL. I
> think 2 is clearly false.

The *contents of the source of the tree itself* are indeed GPL, and I doubt that
anybody argues otherwise. The actual method(s) used to *STORE* said contents
are *NOT* GPL - 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.

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]