Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Horst von Brand <brand _at_ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Adrian Bunk <bunk _at_ fs.tum.de> said:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 11:55:21AM +0100, Horst von Brand wrote:
> 
> >...
> > they aren't in violation. Sure, having a look at the non-official patches
> > they apply would be nice, but not mandated by GPL.
> 
> [ disclaimer: the UnitedLinux issue in the subject is already resolved ]

Right.

> This is wrong. Section 3 of the GPL says that you have to accompany the
> binaries either with the complete source code (and this includes all
> patches you have applied) or with a "written offer, valid for at least
> three years, to give any third party for a charge no more than your cost
> of physically performing source distribution, a complete
> machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code".

Great! The "complete source code" for the kernel does include each and
every single patch applied since linux-0.0.1? Guess I'll have to complain
to a certain Torvalds then...

Don't be silly. "Complete source code" means the source needed to rebuild
the binary, nothing more. If that is a mangled version derived from some
other  source, so be it. You are explicitly allowed to distribute changed
versions, but only under GPL. [IANAL etc, so...]
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                     Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria              +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile                Fax:  +56 32 797513
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/