Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented?
Quoted 3 lines · David Schwartz
Checking source code out of a repository is an obfuscatory act that
separates the raw source code from the rationale for that source code. It's equivalent to stripping comments. The GPL does not allow
So is shipping the source without the transcript of the kernel developer's conference, because then you're stripping out some of the design rationale.
So is shipping the source without a neuron dump of the programmer - let's face it, we've ALL looked at code and said "What WERE they thinking?", and therefor a neuron dump would be part of the *preferred* format.
You seem determined to obfuscate the issue by confusing the *SOURCE* that actually gets modified, and metainformation used to keep TRACK of the source.
Quick sanity test:
Do people actually modify the BK repository, or do they check it out so they can actually modify *THE CHECKED OUT TREE*? Last I heard, people actually did edits on the source tree, and they used gcc (or whatever compiler) on the source tree. Then they make diffs between the old tree and new tree and send them to Linus.
Seems to *ME* that since almost all of the source code was actually created in a '(vi|emacs) / make / gcc / diff' environment, that is the PREFERRED format for making modifications.
Don't confuse the source tree with metainformation, or you'll end up having to carry around inode information. Lest you think I'm joking, consider the fact that the original Crowther&Woods Adventure game was called 'ADVENT.FOR', and the case and number of chars was actually significant information....
Quoted 11 lines · On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:32:53 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 4 lines · David Schwartz
Checking source code out of a repository is an obfuscatory act that
separates the raw source code from the rationale for that source code. It's equivalent to stripping comments. The GPL does not allowSo is shipping the source without the transcript of the kernel developer's
conference, because then you're stripping out some of the design rationale.
If a transcipt of the developer's conference is part of the
preferred form of the source for making modifications, then the GPL requires that you distribute that. I would argue that it probably isn't, but if many of the developers have access to that transcript it and use it while they make modifications, then it's an arguable point.
Quoted 5 lines
So is shipping the source without a neuron dump of the programmer - let's face
it, we've ALL looked at code and said "What WERE they thinking?", and therefor
a neuron dump would be part of the *preferred* format.
If the people who make most of the modifications have access to and
use such a dump in the process of making modifications, then it would probably be part of the preferred form.
Quoted 4 lines
You seem determined to obfuscate the issue by confusing the *SOURCE* that
actually gets modified, and metainformation used to keep TRACK of the source.
You seem determined to pretend that by "source" the GPL means
"whatever you can compile to create the executable" when it clearly says otehrwise.
Quoted 8 lines
Don't confuse the source tree with metainformation, or you'll end up having
to carry around inode information. Lest you think I'm joking, consider the
fact that the original Crowther&Woods Adventure game was called 'ADVENT.FOR',
and the case and number of chars was actually significant information....
The test seems to be whether the metainformation is actually useful
in the process of making modifications or, to put it another way, whether the people making such modifications prefer to have that information. I would certainly prefer to have change history and commit rationales. If the people who actually make most of the modifications actually have access to and use that information in the process of making modifications, I don't see how you can argue that this information isn't part of the source as defined by the GPL.
Keeping the comments in a different file and claiming that's not
part of the source is completely equivalent to stripping the comments from the source before you distribute it. The GPL doesn't permit obfuscated source. "Just enough to compile it" isn't sufficient. It requires the "preferred form" for making modifications. If this actually includes design rationale documents, revision history, and other such things, then they are part of the source.
The intent of the GPL seems to be to put "outside" developers on the
same footing as "inside" developers. Being able to withhold development information that is actually useful for making modifications seems to be prohibited.
This leaves interesting questions like how you can GPL a project
that includes signed components.
DS
David Schwartz <[email protected]> said:
[...]
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 5 lines
So is shipping the source without a neuron dump of the programmer - let's face
it, we've ALL looked at code and said "What WERE they thinking?", and therefor
a neuron dump would be part of the *preferred* format.If the people who make most of the modifications have access to and
use such a dump in the process of making modifications, then it would probably be part of the preferred form.
Hummm. _now_ I see the fundamental problem: The GPL isn't distributed with a neuron dump of RMS so we can check what he meant by "preferred format". Seems the GPL is being distributed illegally...
[Can we let this die, now? Pretty please?]
Signature · 4 lines
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