Posted Mar 3, 2011 10:39 UTC (Thu) by khim
In reply to: What rights?
Parent article: Red Hat's "obfuscated" kernel source
But it absolutely does interfere with those rights. How can you claim it does not?
I'm not claiming that. RedHat does.
I don't think you've read the whole thing. Basically RedHat says the following:
1. You have no right to distribute anything you are downloading from our servers.
2. But if you know that some open-source license gives you such right and can prove that then you are in the clear.
3. Our lawyers are always ready to discuss your proof in the court of law.
See? It does not interfere with your GPL rights - but it shifts the separation issue on your side. You must prove that you have the right to distribute anything - and if you'll do a single error... well, your support contract is no longer valid and that's that.
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?
They contain mix of the GPLed code and non-GPLed code. For example a lot of files in Documentation subdirectory are not derived works of kernel (even if they are distributed in the same tarball - see "mere aggregation" clause). This means that the fact that patch applies to Linux kernel is not enough to clear you: you must review each and every patch and decide what parts of it are GPL-derived and what parts are not GPL-derived. This is quite non-trivial amount of work.
to post comments)