| |||||||||||||
Commitment to Open ?Commitment to Open ?Posted Mar 6, 2011 11:37 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)In reply to: Commitment to Open ? by jch Parent article: Commitment to Open (Red Hat News)
You claim a violation of "spirit". Some people claim it is a violation of the license. I was addressing the latter and not the former.
(Log in to post comments)
Commitment to Open ? Posted Mar 6, 2011 13:05 UTC (Sun) by jch (guest, #51929) [Link]
Let me correct myself, then.
RedHat are clearly not distributing the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". By failing to do so, they are violating both the spirit and the letter of the GPL.
Whether or not anyone intends to sue them is irrelevant -- they should fix what many of us see as a serious mistake, lest they loose much of the community's goodwill they have earned over the years.
Better?
--jch
Commitment to Open ? Posted Mar 6, 2011 14:19 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
It expresses your opinion and belief better however a claim of license violation is a legal one and considering that Red Hat has a well qualified legal team that would have certainly reviewed the legal validity of such actions before Red Hat made them, I am inclined to trust their judgement instead of a layperson interpretation of it. In the case of a alleged infringement, whether or not one is willing to take it to court is certainly relevant and the absence of it, I consider such claims spurious ones.
I have no qualms about people arguing about the "spirit" of the license since that is open to interpretation and one doesn't need to be a copyright expert to do so.
|
|||||||||||||