Posted Mar 3, 2011 12:02 UTC (Thu) by dskoll
In reply to: Once again...
Parent article: Red Hat's "obfuscated" kernel source
I'm not claiming that. RedHat does.
Red Hat is full of crap if it claims that.
If you think Red Hat is using the threat of lawyers to stop people from distributing the patches ("Our lawyers are always ready to discuss your proof in the court of law."), then that's even worse. That throws a huge chill over collaborative kernel development. Even I don't think Red Hat is that bad; I believe they won't actually sue anyone for distributing the patches.
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.
If you believe that's what Red Hat is doing, then it's even worse that what I'm claiming it's doing. If what you say is true, then Red Hat is deliberately blocking collaborative kernel development and adding legal threats to its arsenal against anyone using its patches. Do you think that's in the spirit of the GPL?
to post comments)