| |||||||||||||
Red Hat and the GPLRed Hat and the GPLPosted Mar 10, 2011 23:39 UTC (Thu) by branden (subscriber, #7029)In reply to: Red Hat and the GPL by gregkh Parent article: Red Hat and the GPL
"Please do not read ANYTHING into my comments about this other than explicitly what I stated."
I was not trying to do, nor imply as much.
It is challenging for me to understand how a roster of RHEL's patches to its 2.6.32 kernel has value when Mr. Attems excavates it, but not when Red Hat provides it.
Because if it has value both ways, then clearly Red Hat has removed value from their kernel SRPM offering.
The pregnant question is whether such removed value brings the RHEL kernel SRPM below the threshold of being a "preferred form for modifying the work".
I acknowledge that, in your assessment, it doesn't.
(Log in to post comments)
Red Hat and the GPL Posted Mar 13, 2011 2:06 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Yes, a single tarball is less valuable than a upstream tarball + individual patches + running commentary. But that is wide off the point: GPL does not mandate distributing the later, only the former. Sure, I'm miffed that I don't have access to a valuable resource anymore, but that doesn't make Red Hat's actions against GPL.
|
|||||||||||||