Posted Mar 9, 2011 23:52 UTC (Wed) by airlied (subscriber, #9104)
since you aren't suing anybody in here but just bashing Red Hat and claiming uber-GPL knowledge, not sure why you don't feel the need to bash FSF.
Posted Mar 10, 2011 1:37 UTC (Thu) by branden (guest, #7029)
It is a long established principle that a copyright holder cannot violate the license in his/her/its own work.
Consequently, the copyright holder can distribute the "source" of a GPLed work of theirs in any form they wish, or not at all.
Red Hat is not in this position with respect to the Linux kernel.
Does that clear things up?
(I swear--people don't read my long posts, and don't understand the short ones.)
Posted Mar 10, 2011 1:40 UTC (Thu) by branden (guest, #7029)
1) The FSF really is the sole copyright holder in bash. I've reviewed its source code many times.
2) The double standard of which you complain is established by Title 17 of the United States Code. Copyright holders enjoy exclusive rights. That's just the way it is.
We could discuss reforming copyright law to be more equitable, but that's out of scope for this thread even by my freeweheeling assessment.
Posted Mar 10, 2011 1:42 UTC (Thu) by branden (guest, #7029)
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds