Preferred form
Preferred form
Posted Mar 6, 2011 4:40 UTC (Sun) by branden (guest, #7029)In reply to: Preferred form by corbet
Parent article: Commitment to Open (Red Hat News)
It's not about what's most convenient for *you*, the downstream guy. It's about what was the preferred form for modification *by the upstream provider who modified it*.
This shift in perspective is critical.
The whole philosophy of the GNU GPL is to create a community of users for works of software wherein all are co-equal (within the limits of individual aptitude, of course).
That the one-big-monolith kernel SRPMs are a modifiable form of the work is not the point. As you implied, object files and preprocessor output are perfectly modifiable as well, but are seldom the preferred form for modification under the GNU GPL. These monolithic-patch SRPMS are not, by all accounts, the preferred form of the work for modification by those developing and distributing them--Red Hat's kernel engineers.
Congratulations are in order, I suppose, to Red Hat's management, who look poised to pull off what Larry McVoy could not--lock up a significant chunk of Linux kernel development behind a paywall without ominous notes of caution from the preeminent journalist in the field.
Posted Mar 6, 2011 5:15 UTC (Sun)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link]
Those interested in my opinion on this move are likely to get their chance to read it. Until that happens, let me just say that "I believe it complies with the letter of the GPL" is not equivalent to saying "I believe this is a good thing."
Remember that my first post on the subject included an expressed hope that this whole thing was an accident.
Preferred form