[...]
> > 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/