Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
It'll be interesting indeed...
Posted Mar 6, 2011 20:13 UTC (Sun) by salimma (subscriber, #34460)
Posted Mar 7, 2011 19:14 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
No, it isn't. FSF requires copyright assignment before they accept your changes. Once you have assigned copyright to them, they can well do as they please with your changes, i.e., distributing them (or not) in whatever form they desire. Nobody has any legal standing to sue them over what they do with their own stuff.
Once somebody else gets, say, GCC, from the FSF, they are bound to honor GPL. Saying that FSF usually has distributed their packages only as monolithic tarballs is sort of a red hering. But others have followed suit, and FSF didn't say a word. So, in a sense they have set an example by their own actions and what they have allowed historically. And this could presumably be important in case some court considers ruling on what GPL's meaning of "preferred form for modification" really means.
Also don't forget that for the most part of its history Linux itself was distributed as tarball + monolithic patches as the only format available, and later (in the bitkeeper days) that was still the canonical format. This does weight a lot against the "git trees are the preferred form" arguments.
Actually they do...
Posted Mar 8, 2011 8:11 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
Nobody has any legal standing to sue them over what they do with their own stuff.
Actually they do. FSF's copyright assignment includes promises to the contributor, but yes, it's not GPL, it's separate assignment. It includes words like "machine-readable source code", but does not include words like "preferred form", so it's more relevant to spirit discussion and less relevant to legal discussion.
But others have followed suit, and FSF didn't say a word.
Actually they said lots of words about Cygnus (which had roughly similar policy to today's RedHat) - and most of them were bad. But again, they were about moral responsibility, etc - and not about legality...
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds