Posted Mar 2, 2011 19:54 UTC (Wed) by khim
In reply to: Heh...
Parent article: Red Hat's "obfuscated" kernel source
You are forced to give up rights you'd normally have even in the absence of the support contract.
In the absence of the support contract you have no access to patches in question so you can not distribute them.
For example, if Red Hat's segregated kernel patches magically landed in my mailbox, it would be perfectly legal for me to redistribute them under the GPL even though I'm not a Red Hat customer.
If you can prove that patches arrived in your mailbox from source other then RedHat's site (for example from kernel.org site) you are still free to distribute them.
If Red Hat's contract said: "If you take advantage of the rights under the GPL to redistribute our patches, you agree to pay Red Hat software one billion dollars", then that would clearly be a severe restriction on redistribution.
Sure. This will be like patent license: no matter how you've gotten the patches you are forbidden to excercise your rights. RedHat's agreement only restricts distribution of meta-information. You are free to strip meta-information and distribute raw source/patches. In fact if the meta-information comes from third-party source and not from RedHat you are free to distribute that too - but you must prove that it indeed come from different source.
The existence of an additional restriction cannot be disputed and this violates the GPL.
Sorry, but no. It's said quite explicitly: this Appendix is
not intended to interfere with your rights under those individual licenses. If you can prove that you had the right to distribute something under terms of GPL then you are in the free. Just remember that while software included in patches is GPL-licensed different commit messages, ACKs and NAKs are not. And they may even be peceived as trade secrets.
You will need pretty good lawer to properly cleanup the patches from RedHat's web site, but you can distribute the source code itself - RedHat does not interfere with that.
to post comments)