| |||||||||||||
Red Hat and the GPLRed Hat and the GPLPosted Mar 9, 2011 22:23 UTC (Wed) by jondkent (guest, #19595)Parent article: Red Hat and the GPL
omg, everyone here is a lawyer all of a sudden, quoting their own understanding (or not) of the GPL, or what they wish it was, which I think is the main issue.
I'm not going to pretend I understand the GPL fully enough to comment (and wish other would do so), but I'll comment on the negative emotion going on here. Step back and look at what is actually happening here.
- are Red Hat stopping committing upstream - no
so what on earth is the issue here? Do not mention the GPL, that is _not_ an issue.
(Log in to post comments)
Red Hat and the GPL Posted Mar 9, 2011 22:50 UTC (Wed) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
The issue is that a kernel developer for Debian (Maximilian Attems) and the upstream stable kernel maintainer (Greg Kroah-Hartman) complained about RH's behavior, and that it made their work (maintaining a 2.6.32 stable kernel that is not based on RHEL's) more difficult.
Red Hat and the GPL Posted Mar 9, 2011 23:26 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
So isn't the solution to the problem for Redhat to work directly with those developers to ease their concerns, possibly by even giving them free support access that grants them access to Redhat's information rather than complaining that they violate some term of the GPL that someone is defining however they would like?
I can understand the developers complaint and I can understand the community anger at the change. But I won't ever understand someone trying to redefine the GPL to imply that whatever work flow they prefer to use is the only valid form of compliance. RMS defined numerous times what that clause means, that is the definition that applies unless you want to write your own license.
Red Hat and the GPL Posted Mar 10, 2011 1:08 UTC (Thu) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
I completely agree with you. I think the whole "Is it or isn't it a GPL Violation?" discussion is a huge distraction from the actual issue.
Red Hat and the GPL Posted Mar 10, 2011 9:41 UTC (Thu) by PaXTeam (subscriber, #24616) [Link]
> - are Red Hat stopping committing upstream - no
nothing to do with the RHEL6 srpm.
> - are Red Hat refusing to work with other devs - no
nothing to do with the RHEL6 srpm.
> - are Red Hat trying to protect their business - yes
nothing to do with the RHEL6 srpm.
> - does this really affect other distros - no;
yes it does (you could have inferred that from all the complaints of said 'other distros'). and more than just 'distros' (there're many in-house 'distros' too that every now and then take a look at what RHEL has, e.g., for backports of security fixes, etc).
> they do not use rhel kernel, at least not the rhel ripoffs
childish namecalling doesn't help your cause. i know, i just did it too.
> - do you want to use a rhel kernel - no;
strawman. if you put it this way: "do you want to use PARTS OF a rhel kernel" then you're getting closer to understanding the issue.
> they are very old and have little in common with the vanilla tree
RHEL6 (the topic of this whole discussion) is anything but 'very old'. and it has a lot in common with the vanilla tree, not the least because of RH's own effort to send upstream as many bits and pieces as possible.
|
|||||||||||||