Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Red Hat and the GPLRed Hat and the GPLPosted Mar 9, 2011 20:20 UTC (Wed) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)In reply to: Red Hat and the GPL by paulj Parent article: Red Hat and the GPL
Taking this to an extreme, my preferred form for hacking on random code is a running XEmacs with a buffer open on each file. Do I have to distribute that somehow? That in the course of working on some piece of code I use (for convenience, for speeding up compilation, or any other random reason) some particular representation does not make that automatically useful for others (some people I respect use vim ;-), and thus not necesarily "preferred". So that/if Red Hat uses/used a SRPM with broken out patches at some point is wide off the mark: They have to distribute the complete source with with to rebuild the binaries, nothing more.
(Log in to post comments)
Red Hat and the GPL Posted Mar 18, 2011 18:55 UTC (Fri) by mishad (guest, #69757) [Link]
> Taking this to an extreme,
The law doesn't do that -- judges interpret contracts "reasonably" not as what they might mean if taken to extremes.
> They have to distribute the complete source with with to rebuild the binaries,
Yes.
> nothing more.
Not quite -- they also need to identify their changes:
GPL v2 $2 (a): You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change
Distributing "base + patches" is arguably one way to do that. "Base + monolithic-patch" might be another. Simply adding a note in the file header is also OK.
|
|||||||||||||