Distros Violate the GPL?

garym — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:42:01 -0500

Are the Linux distributions violating the GPL? Sends a shiver down your spine, don't it. Ce n'est pas possible! Perhaps unthinkable, but nonetheless, it may be true, at least true for that handful of crews using a package manager to distribute their distro-harmonized binary-format bundles.

Allow me to explain ...

First off, so there's no mistake, let's establish our ground rules and quote from the source, from the GPL2 Terms and Conditions, section 3:

"... The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."
GNU General Public License version 2

Ok, now, this says that if you distribute software, you must make the source available for free.

That means the source of the binary you are redistributing, including any patches you may have applied, the source code for the software you actually bundle.

Now here's where it maybe gets a little fuzzy, fuzzy enough for vendors to retain their proprietary edge while remaining inside the letter of the law if not it's spirit: C/C++ code is source, no question, and .h header files are also indisputably source code. So are Makefile and even configure.in and Makefile.in and herein the problem ... what about config.status?

- Distros Violate the GPL? - Comments

Distros Violate the GPL?