On Sunday 06 Mar 2011, A. Mani wrote: > On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 8:53 PM, satyaakam goswami <satyaa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The following has been an interesting read > > http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Controversy-surrounds-Red-Ha > > t-s-obfuscated-source-code-release-1200554.html > > See http://lwn.net/Articles/430098/ > > It is a GPL violation.
Maybe I'm short-sighted, but I don't really see how it is a GPL violation. The GPL doesn't state anything about providing explicit patches vs one monolithic source. As long as the RH modifications are appropriately commented and documented, it's very much within the letter of the GPL. Sure, it may violate the spirit to some extent, and it's not a move I'd have wanted to see if anyone had asked my opinion, but I doubt if there is any legal obstacle to RH doing things this way. Regards, -- Raju -- Raj Mathur r...@kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves _______________________________________________ Ilugd mailing list Ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
