Red Hat's "obfuscated" kernel source [LWN.net]

Red Hat's "obfuscated" kernel source

Posted Mar 1, 2011 17:55 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
In reply to: Red Hat's "obfuscated" kernel source by daniels
Parent article: Red Hat's "obfuscated" kernel source

I actually didn't state an opinion. I seldom state an opinion. I do tend to ask a lot of questions. My opinion ultimately does not really matter. What matters is the consensus opinion of the upstream project developers and the the larger consensus opinion of the ecosystem from which Red Hat draws partners and consumers. And that such a consensus opinion be applied fairly and broadly to all participants.

In this specific case, the underlying issue here is the attempt by other multi-vendors to "sync" their offering in some way. This wouldn't really have come up as a potential scandal if the effort to "sync" wasn't under way. No one pounds on Cisco/Linksys to make code available widely because the kernel they ship in their embedded junk isn't a cross-vendor "sync" target.

There is and there will always be a tension between standardization and differentiation between vendors in the marketplace. This round of "syncing" as mentioned in the original interview isn't the first such effort in the inherent tug of war of market interests. Anyone else remember the United Linux effort? I believe the current "syncing" effort at the kernel layer is similar in motivation if not in scope. It will be interesting if such cross-distro syncing becomes an important aspect of closing customer deals or not. The question remains as to whether the paying market values that cross-distro syncing effort. Time will tell. It's far from clear how important such standardization is in the final analysis.

-jef

to post comments

Red Hat's "obfuscated" kernel source

Posted Mar 1, 2011 22:10 UTC (Tue) by jrn (subscriber, #64214) [Link] (3 responses)

> No one pounds on Cisco/Linksys to make code available widely

Really?

Red Hat's "obfuscated" kernel source

Posted Mar 1, 2011 22:16 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link] (2 responses)

No they get pounded to make it available to customers...at all. A bar Red Hat already meets. Many embedded vendors have trouble even meeting the strictest definition of GPL compliance of getting the source code in the hands of their customers...let alone into the hands of competitors or the general public or any nuance discussion about the "preferred" form.

-jef

Red Hat's "obfuscated" kernel source

Posted Mar 1, 2011 22:34 UTC (Tue) by jrn (subscriber, #64214) [Link] (1 responses)

Yes, I guess I should have phrased it another way: Red Hat has successfully raised expectations. People like them and are disappointed when they create obstacles because it is currently possible to collaborate with them.

I don't think that has too much to do with standardization. To give another example, many people _are_ upset that Google does not make their work on Android public as it happens but only makes code drops now and then. That is for many reasons, including wanting to be able to take advantage of hardware support from that tree and to increase its code quality.

Red Hat's "obfuscated" kernel source

Posted Mar 1, 2011 22:51 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]

Sure be disappointed...express that honest disappointment. But be as fair an unbiased about expectations as you can. If this is going to hurt how people are already collaborating with Red Hat, then by all means those people should speak up and tell Red Hat that they valued that collaboration which the older kernel patch policy facilitated and try to engage them in a dialogue on how to structure things so that collaboration can continue to happen.

-jef