It was good idea before the "Unbreakable Linux" [LWN.net]

It was good idea before the "Unbreakable Linux"

Posted Mar 1, 2011 14:54 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
In reply to: Red Hat's "obfuscated" kernel source by jamesh
Parent article: Red Hat's "obfuscated" kernel source

Well, these customers can easily switch to Oracle's Linux so in a sense they are already lost. It customers which need to run more then Oracle's DB that are at stake...

to post comments

It was good idea before the "Unbreakable Linux"

Posted Mar 2, 2011 6:58 UTC (Wed) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link] (4 responses)

Just because they can switch to Oracle's Linux doesn't mean that it is in Red Hat's best interest to push them to that distro.

It is far from clear that the loss of customers would be offset by whatever gains they get from not letting Oracle certify their software on RH's platform.

Of course Oracle will be certified!

Posted Mar 2, 2011 14:28 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (3 responses)

Huh? Where the idea to not certify the Oracle comes from? It's actually backwards: Oracle gives certificate, not RedHat.

And this is the problem: if user only cares about Oracle certificate and has no interest in anything else then there are no realistic way to keep him/her. If, on the other hand, he/she cares about other kinds of certification then it's in RedHat's interest to make sure this certificate can not be easily obtained by Unbreakable Linux too. And for that it must make sure Oracle can not just use components of RHEL. It must build them from scratch and, more importantly, Unbreakable Linux certificate must be earned by each ISV, not added on the cheap.

CentOS is not a problem here: it carries no certificates and is not interested in carrying them. Unbreakable Linux does carry them - and this trend must be stopped or at least slowed down.

Of course Oracle will be certified!

Posted Mar 3, 2011 9:50 UTC (Thu) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link] (2 responses)

But in order for Oracle to certify their software running on RHEL, presumably they need access to RHEL.

If Red Hat cuts off Oracle's access to RHEL completely, then Oracle can't certify their software on that platform.

This is exactly why this license exist...

Posted Mar 3, 2011 10:46 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (1 responses)

Sure, but then Oracle is constrained by support contract and can not just lift patches from RHEL and land them in Unbreakable Linux.

This is not about the physical ability of doing something: of course the team which certifies RHEL can pass patches around to the team which polishes Unbreakable Linux - but then Oracle will be in very hot water and will be forced to pay sizable sum for damages incurred.

How well it'll work remains to be seen, but the idea is simple enough.

This is exactly why this license exist...

Posted Mar 3, 2011 11:18 UTC (Thu) by PaXTeam (guest, #24616) [Link]

> but then Oracle is constrained by support contract and can not just lift patches from RHEL and land them in Unbreakable Linux.

sure they can, otherwise RH would be violating GPL2 section 6 ("You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.")

whether they 'retaliate' by tearing up the support contract is a different matter, it has zero bearing on the legality of redistributing RH kernel patches.