Posted Mar 2, 2011 20:18 UTC (Wed) by dskoll
In reply to: What rights?
Parent article: Red Hat's "obfuscated" kernel source
In the absence of the support contract you have no access to patches in question so you can not distribute them.
No, that's untrue. Someone with a support contract could (legally) mail me the patches, and I could redistribute them in the absence of a support contract with Red Hat. The person who sent me the patches might be in hot water with Red Hat, but I wouldn't be.
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.
Nope. Even if I obtained the patches from Red Hat, I can still distribute them because they are GPL'd (being derived products created from a GPL'd work.)
RedHat's agreement only restricts distribution of meta-information.
Are you claiming that Red Hat's patches are not derived from a GPL'd work? I don't think even Red Hat claims that.
Sorry, but no. It's said quite explicitly: this Appendix is not intended to interfere with your rights under those individual licenses.
But it absolutely does interfere with those rights. How can you claim it does not?
You will need pretty good lawer to properly cleanup the patches from RedHat's web site
Why do you think that? Are you claiming that the patches Red Hat distributes to its customers are not derived from a GPL'd work?
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.
I am not talking about commit messages. I am referring to the individual kernel patches that Red Hat does make available (only) to its customers (supposedly) under the GPL.
to post comments)