Does something prevent distributing the patches?

Posted May 6, 2017 0:10 UTC (Sat) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
In reply to: Does something prevent distributing the patches? by tlamp
Parent article: Grsecurity goes private

It is really really easy to add a signature to code.
Just write a mini code processor which changes whitespaces in indentation here and there, use different variable names, use different code structure add some hidden unicode symbols, ...

I think this would be a violation of the GPL, which requires that the code be redistributed in the preferred form for making modifications. It shouldn't be hard to argue that the preferred form for making modifications is the form the coders actually use when they're working on it, so that any attempt to watermark the code the way you're describing violates that term of the GPL.

to post comments

Does something prevent distributing the patches?

Posted May 6, 2017 0:18 UTC (Sat) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] (1 responses)

Good luck on that one. You're seriously arguing that whitespace affects the copyright status of a work?

Does something prevent distributing the patches?

Posted May 6, 2017 1:23 UTC (Sat) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]

It's not a question of the copyright status of the code. Nothing a code mangling algorithm does would count as original authorship, which would be required to have copyright implications. The question is about compliance with the terms of the GPL, which requires that code be redistributed in the preferred format for modification. Mangling the code- and the grandparent went well beyond whitespace changes to things like changing variable names and even code structure- is at least arguably changing the code from the preferred form for making modifications to something else. Somebody who was actually going to sue over GPL compliance would be foolish not to include that in their complaint.