| |||||||||||||
Red Hat and the GPLRed Hat and the GPLPosted Mar 9, 2011 22:50 UTC (Wed) by foom (subscriber, #14868)In reply to: Red Hat and the GPL by jondkent Parent article: Red Hat and the GPL
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||