From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: davids@webmaster.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Is the repository of a GPL'd program itself under the GPL?
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 19:50:35 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E18aQ95-0006UU-00@fencepost.gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030118075455.GB18969@bjl1.asuk.net> (message from Jamie Lokier on Sat, 18 Jan 2003 07:54:55 +0000)
> So then suppose the tool I use for modifying the source code
> unpacks/decrypts it, allows changes, and then packs/encrypts it
> again. Suppose further that this tool is proprietary and not
> available without onerous licensing requirements. Would you say
> releasing the source code thus packed/encrypted meets the GPL?
It is not the preferred form for editing the source code,
so it is not the real source code as defined by the GPL.
However, this begs another question: the kernel source is GPL'd. But
is the _repository_ at bkbits.net GPL'd?
I believe the contents are all under the GPL.
And if so, do I have the
right to demand a copy of the whole repository whenever I receive a
binary kernel, or is that right restricted to the checked out files
used to compile that kernel?
Whoever distributes a binary kernel to you has the obligation to
offer you the complete source code corresponding to the binary.
Source code not used in producing that binary need not be
included.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-01-20 0:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-18 4:33 Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented? 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 7:54 ` [OFFTOPIC] Is the repository of a GPL'd program itself under the GPL? Jamie Lokier
2003-01-20 0:50 ` Richard Stallman [this message]
2003-01-18 5:02 ` Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented? 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=E18aQ95-0006UU-00@fencepost.gnu.org \
--to=rms@gnu.org \
--cc=davids@webmaster.com \
--cc=jamie@shareable.org \
--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