From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:19:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:19:33 -0500 Received: from [209.167.240.9] ([209.167.240.9]:59635 "EHLO ottonexc1.peregrine.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:19:31 -0500 Subject: Re: Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented? From: Dana Lacoste To: David Schwartz Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20030120010504.AAA18836@shell.webmaster.com@whenever> References: <20030120010504.AAA18836@shell.webmaster.com@whenever> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Date: 20 Jan 2003 09:28:35 -0500 Message-Id: <1043072915.1397.17.camel@dlacoste.ottawa.loran.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 20:05, David Schwartz wrote: > Don't blame me. The GPL just says the "preferred" form and leaves us > to wonder. As I understand it, however, you cannot ship binaries of a > GPL'd project unless you can distribute the source code in the > "preferred form .. for making modifications to it". The GPL specifically allows for multiple methods of accessing the 'preferred form' including FTP, including the source in the distribution, etc. BitKeeper is nothing more than another method to access that 'preferred source'. Please stop this. You're looking kind of silly here. Dana Lacoste Ottawa, Canada PS: nobody said 'IANAL' yet. meaning you're just a noisy peanut gallery :)