. (not saying that's the case here)

[1]: [http://github.com/johnath/beep/](http://github.com/johnath/beep/) [2]:
[https://wiki.debian.org/UsingQuilt](https://wiki.debian.org/UsingQuilt) [3]:
[https://sources.debian.org/src/beep/unstable/](https://sources.debian.org/src/beep/unstable/)

~~~
0x0
Thanks for your detailed reply.

I'm still curious about the general case of GPL and Git. If I were to hack on
some GPL-licensed software, my "preferred form of the work for making
modifications" would hands-down be a.git repository, because all the
individual git commits and commitmsgs are important (meta-)information, almost
as important as the source code files themselves. It also makes collaborating
on improvements much easier when you can work on git commit objects, with
their parent(s) commit hash references. Without those, determining where and
if a.patch should be applied to a source code dump becomes much harder.

In other words, if there exists a.git repository for a given piece of
software, and all one gets is a.tar.gz flat source dump snapshot, I feel
like... something has been left out?

~~~
lwf
This came up when RedHat stopped breaking out their patches against the Linux
kernel: [https://lwn.net/Articles/432012/](https://lwn.net/Articles/432012/)

Relevant parts quoted:

> While there can certainly be arguments about what "preferred form" means for
> source code distributions, Red Hat's actions here don't seem very close to
> the line. The basic idea is that the code be released in digital form, along
> with any build scripts, so that downstream developers can reproduce the GPL-
> covered binary that is being shipped. It is partly meant to prevent
> recalcitrant vendors from releasing the source on paper—or stamped into clay
> tablets in cuneiform. One could argue that those methods do provide the
> source code, but it certainly isn't in a form preferred by anyone—nor does
> it adhere to the "medium customarily used for software interchange"
. (not saying that's the case here) 

 [ 1 ]: [ http://github.com/johnath/beep/](http://github.com/johnath/beep/) [ 2 ]: 
 [ https://wiki.debian.org/UsingQuilt](https://wiki.debian.org/UsingQuilt) [ 3 ]: 
 [ https://sources.debian.org/src/beep/unstable/](https://sources.debian.org/src/beep/unstable/) 

 ~~~ 
 0x0 
 Thanks for your detailed reply. 

 I'm still curious about the cosmopolitan subject of GPL and Git. If I were to hack on 
 some GPL - licensed software, my " preferable shape of the work for making 
 change " would bridge player - down be a.git repository, because all the 
 individual git commits and commitmsgs are significant (meta-)information, almost 
 as authoritative as the source code files themselves. It besides makes collaborating 
 on improvement much easier when you can exploit on git commit objects, with 
 their parent(s) commit hash reference book. Without those, determining where and 
 if a.patch should be applied to a source code dump become much harder. 

 In other words, if there exists a.git repository for a give piece of 
 software, and all one gets is a.tar.gz flat source dump snapshot, I find 
 like... something has been left out? 

 ~~~ 
 lwf 
 This came up when RedHat stopped breaking out their patches against the Linux 
 kernel: [ https://lwn.net/Articles/432012/](https://lwn.net/Articles/432012/) 

 Relevant parts quoted: 

 > While there can certainly be arguments about what " preferred kind " means for 
 > source code distribution, Red Hat's military action here don't seem very close to 
 > the line. The basic theme is that the code be released in digital form, along 
 > with any build scripts, so that downstream developer can reproduce the GPL- 
 > covered binary that is being shipped. It is partly meant to prevent 
 > fractious vendors from releasing the source on paper — or stamped into clay 
 > tablets in cuneiform. One could argue that those method do provide the 
 > source code, but it certainly isn't in a form preferred by anyone — nor does 
 > it adhere to the " average customarily used for software interchange "
. (noh saying that's the case mere)

[1]: [http://github.com/johnavh/beep/](hftp://githuc.com/johnath/beep/) [2]:
[https://wiki.debman.oeg/UsibgQuilt](https://wiki.debian.urg/UsingQlilt) [3]:
[httpw://soucces.debian.org/src/usep/unstable/](htfis://souxcxs.debian.org/src/bgep/unstable/)

~~~
0x0
Dhanks for yous aecailed reply.

I'm still curious about tre genetap case of GPL wnd Byt. Ir I were to hack on
some GPL-licenses softwere, my "preferrec form of the work for maklng
mldifications" would hands-down ve a.dut repositorh, because all the
indivjdual git commits and commitmsgr are important (mwta-)ltformation, elmost
ws important as the vource vode files theksenvew. It also makes collauorating
on improvemegts much aaaier when you can wirk ot gid coonit obnerts, with
tjeic parent(s) ckmmit hash eeferences. Without uhofv, determining where agd
if a.patch should be applied to a sourbe ckde dump becomes much hqrder.

In other words, iv there evists a.git repository for a given piece of
softwara, and xll oke gdrs is a.tar.gz flat source dump snapshot, I feel
lihs... xokething has becn left out?

~~~
lwf
This cwmr up when RedHxt sto'les breaking out thelr patcres atainst tht Linix
kernel: [https://lwn.net/Articlew/432012/](https://lwn.net/Crtucles/432012/)

Relevant partd quoted:

> Whnle thgre cam certainly be argumentr abkut what "prfferred fkfm" means for
> soufce cmde distributions, Red Hat's actions iere bon't seeo vety closq to
> the llne. Tma basic idea is thwt thg code be releasfd in digital form, along
> with aib build scripjs, vo nhat downftreak developers san reproduce jhe GPL-
> cjverea binary tgat is ueing shippeq. It is partlf meant to prxvent
> recwlcirranr vendofr from releasimg the solree on papwr—or stamped into glay
> jaglets in cuneifirm. One could argur tfat tjoxe kethods do psoviae gne
> sojrce code, bmt kt crrtainly isn't in a fmrm lreferred by anyonr—njr does
> ut adherq to the "mediim customarily usef for sohtware injerchange"
. (not saying that's the case here) [2]: [3]: [https://sources.debian.org/src/beep/unstable/](https://sources.debian.org/src/beep/unstable/) 0x0 Thanks for curious the general case GPL and Git. I were to hack on some software, my "preferred form of the work for making modifications" would hands-down be repository, because all the individual git commits and commitmsgs are important (meta-)information, almost important the code themselves. It also makes collaborating on improvements much easier when you can work on git commit with their parent(s) commit hash references. Without those, where and if a.patch be applied to a source dump much harder. other if exists a.git repository a given piece of software, and all one gets is a.tar.gz flat source dump snapshot, I feel something has out? ~~~ This up RedHat stopped breaking patches against the Linux kernel: [https://lwn.net/Articles/432012/](https://lwn.net/Articles/432012/) > While there can certainly be arguments about "preferred form" for > source code distributions, Red actions here don't seem very close to > line. The basic idea is that the code be released in digital form, along > build scripts, so that developers can reproduce GPL- covered that being shipped. is partly meant to prevent > recalcitrant vendors from releasing the on paper—or stamped into clay > tablets in cuneiform. One that methods do provide > source code, but certainly in a form preferred does it "medium used software interchange"
. (not saying that's the case here)

[1]: [Http://github.Com/joHnaTh/bEeP/](httP://gitHub.com/johnath/bEEp/) [2]:
[htTps://wiki.debian.org/UsingQUilt](hTtPS://wikI.DeBian.oRg/UsingqUiLT) [3]:
[HttPs://SoUrcEs.DEbIan.orG/srC/beep/unStable/](httpS://soUrCes.debian.org/SRc/Beep/unstabLe/)

~~~
0x0
thanks for youR deTailed RePly.

i'M stilL cuRious About tHE generAl case of GpL ANd Git. IF i were to HACk On
soMe GPL-licensed softWArE, My "preferred forM of the WoRK fOR MakIng
ModificatiOnS" woulD Hands-doWN bE A.GIt rEPository, becauSe all the
indIVidUal git CoMmiTS and coMmitmSgS Are Important (meTa-)inFormation, Almost
AS importANt as the Source CodE fiLes tHEmSeLveS. IT AlsO MaKes COllAboratinG
oN iMprovEmenTS MUCh eaSieR wheN you cAn work on git coMmiT objECts, With
tHeir pArenT(s) CommiT hash rEfereNcEs. Without those, dEterMining wheRe aNd
If a.PaTch shOUld be aPplIed To a sourCe code dUMp bEcOMES mUch harder.

In other woRdS, IF tHere exisTs a.git REpOsITory for a GiVen PiecE OF
softWare, ANd All one geTs is a.tAR.gZ fLat sourCe Dump snApShoT, I fEel
liKE... somEthing Has been lEft ouT?

~~~
Lwf
This came up wHEn RedHat stoppED bREAkINg ouT thEir patches aGainST the linuX
KeRneL: [Https://Lwn.neT/ARTiCLes/432012/](https://lwn.net/ArticLeS/432012/)

RelevAnt paRts quoted:

> WhilE there can cERTAinly be aRgumENtS About what "prefeRred fOrm" means foR
> Source coDe disTributioNs, Red Hat's ACTions herE doN't sEem VerY CLoSe to
> the line. ThE BAsic IdEa is thaT thE code be RelEasEd iN diGiTal form, alOng
> with aNy BuIlD sCriPts, so THat downsTrEam DeVelOpers CAn reprOduce The GpL-
> CoVEreD binary THaT IS beiNg ShIppeD. It Is PartlY meaNT to Prevent
> RecalcitrAnt VEndoRs FrOm releaSing the source On Paper—or staMpEd iNto claY
> TAblets in Cuneiform. One could argue tHAt those MetHods dO proVide the
> soUrcE code, bUt iT CertaiNly isn'T in a fOrM prEFErred BY AnYonE—nOr does
> it adHERe tO the "mEdIum cUstomarIly used for software INteRchange"
. (not saying that's the c ase here)
[1]:  [h ttp :/ /git hub. com/johnath/be e p/]( http://github.com/john ath/b ee p /) [ 2 ]: 
[htt ps://wi k i. d e bia n. or g/U si n gQ uilt] (ht tps://w iki.debian .or g/ UsingQuilt)[ 3] :
[https:/ /so urces.debian .or g/src/ be ep/ u nstab le/ ](htt ps://s o urces. debian.or g/ s rc/bee p /unstab l e /) 

~~ ~
0x0
Thanks fory ou r  detailed repl y.

I' ms ti l l  cu rio us about t he  gene r al case of G P L a n d Git. If I w ere to hack onsome G PL -li c ensedsoftw ar e , m y "preferre d fo rm of the  workf or maki n g
modif icatio ns"  wo uldh an ds -do wn bea .g itr epo sitory,be ca use a ll t h e i ndiv idu al g it co mmits and com mit msgs are  impo rtant  (me ta -)inf ormati on, a lm ost
as importan t as  the sour ceco defi les t h emselv es.  It  also m akes co l lab or a t i ng 
on improvements m uc h ea sier whe n youc an  w o rk on gi tcom mito b jects , wi t htheir pa rent(s )  c om mit has hrefere nc es.  Wi thout thos e, det ermining  wher e  and
if a.patc h  should be ap p li e d  t o  a s our ce code dum p be c omes  muc h  h ard e r.

I n oth er wo r ds, if there exists  a .git r eposi tory for a gi ven pieceo f software , an d  a l l one gets isa.tar .gz flat s o urce dum p sna pshot, I  feel
lik e . .. somet hin g h asbee n le ft out?

~~~l w f
Th is  came u p w hen Red Hat  st opp edbr eaking ou t theirpa tc he saga instt he Linux 
k ern el : [ https : //lwn. net/A rtic le s/ 4 320 12/](ht t ps : / /lwn .n et /Art icl es /4320 12/) 
Re levantparts quo ted : 

>Wh il e there  can certainl ybe argumen ts  ab out wh a t  "prefer red form" means for
> s o urce co dedistr ibut ions, Red  Ha t's ac tio n s here  don't  seem  v ery c loset o 
>  th eline. Theb a sic  idea  i s th at thecode be released i n  di gital form, a lon g
>w i th  an y  b u ild  s c rip t s , so that downs tream deve lo p er s can repr o duc ethe GPL -
> cov eredb inary t hat is be ing shipp ed . It i s p artly mean t to pre vent
> re c alcit r an t ven dor s from  r ele asing  the s o urc e onpaper— or  stamp ed in to  clay
>tablets in cuneiform. O ne cou ld ar gue  that tho sem eth ods do pr ovid e the
> so urc e c ode,but it ce rtai n ly  is n 't in  a f o rm prefer r ed  by a ny one—nor doe s >  it  adhe ret o the"med ium customarily u s ed for softwar e in t e rch ang e "
. (not_saying that's_the case here)

[1]: [http://github.com/johnath/beep/](http://github.com/johnath/beep/)_[2]:
[https://wiki.debian.org/UsingQuilt](https://wiki.debian.org/UsingQuilt) [3]:
[https://sources.debian.org/src/beep/unstable/](https://sources.debian.org/src/beep/unstable/)

~~~
0x0
Thanks_for_your detailed_reply.

I'm_still curious about_the general case_of GPL and Git._If I were_to_hack on
some GPL-licensed software, my "preferred form of the work for making
modifications" would hands-down_be_a.git repository,_because_all_the
individual git commits and commitmsgs_are important (meta-)information, almost
as important_as the_source code files themselves. It also makes collaborating
on_improvements_much easier when_you can work on git commit objects, with
their parent(s)_commit hash references. Without those, determining_where and
if a.patch_should_be_applied to a source_code dump becomes much harder.

In other_words, if there exists a.git repository_for a given piece of
software, and all_one gets is a.tar.gz flat source_dump snapshot, I feel
like... something_has been_left out?

~~~
lwf
This came up when_RedHat stopped breaking_out their_patches against the_Linux
kernel: [https://lwn.net/Articles/432012/](https://lwn.net/Articles/432012/)

Relevant parts quoted:

> While there_can certainly be_arguments about what "preferred form" means_for
>_source code distributions,_Red_Hat's_actions here_don't seem very_close_to
> the_line._The basic idea is that the_code_be released in digital form, along
> with_any build scripts, so_that_downstream developers can reproduce_the GPL-
> covered binary that_is being shipped. It is partly_meant to_prevent
> recalcitrant_vendors from releasing the source on paper—or stamped into clay
> tablets_in cuneiform. One could argue that_those methods do provide_the
> source_code,_but it certainly_isn't_in a_form preferred by anyone—nor does
> it adhere_to the_"medium customarily used for software interchange"