>> Does this mean that the version distributed on kernel.org and by other distributors is not the "preferred form of modification"?
> Apparently not.
Of course it is the "preferred form" for anybody working with the kernel sources. It exists in its own right independent of our private version. The scripted conversion just saves us the process of porting changes manually when our version changes.
(note that the 'original' sources are also available under GPL licence)
There is no sign of anyone else trying to submit other than very minor patches to this code. If that happens we'll have to work out what to do...
> (For most hackers, the "preferred form of modification" would actually be a cloned git tree.)
>> I guess the answer is irrelevant until the copyright owner of the code in question decides to turn nasty.
I don't see how this is possible once the code has been released under GPL.