Re: UnitedLinux violating GPL?

[Horst von Brand <brand _at_ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

David Woodhouse <dwmw2 _at_ infradead.org> said:
> brand _at_ jupiter.cs.uni-dortmund.de said:

[...]

> > 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...]

> I disagree. A preprocessed source file with all the variables renamed to 
> random strings would suffice to rebuild the binary, and is obviously not 
> acceptable -- being able to rebuild the binary is not the only criterion.

That isn't "source" in my book.

> 	"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work
> 	for making modifications to it."

Right. And you can take the kernel-source RPM, and update drivers &c just
as you would on the original source + patchsets

> Note that the GPL doesn't say you have to give it in the preferred form for 
> _building_ it, but the preferred form for _modifying_ it. 

> In the opinion of many devlopers, the preferred form of the Linux kernel for
> maintaining it is a set of individual patches against the closest
> 'official' release, and not a tarball containing already-modified code.

That is exactly that: An opinion (or preference) of many (or so you do
think). Not legally binding, AFAIKS...
--
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/