On Sunday 06 Mar 2011, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> Raju Mathur said on Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 08:19:41AM +0530,:
>  > On Sunday 06 Mar 2011, A. Mani wrote:
>  > > 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.
> 
> And how does this violate teh spirit of the GPL?
> 
> The mainline kernel itself accepts binary only blobs / module / code
> / <your fav name for it>. And it worse that these blobs are under
> no-modification licences.
> 
> You do not require a non-s/w guy like me to remind you that if source
> code is available, it is trivial, and in any sense of the term, much
> possible to de-obfuscate it.

Let's leave other issues with the kernel aside for a moment -- because 
the kernel accepts non-free blobs doesn't make any other violation of 
the spirit of the GPL acceptable.

And Redhat's tactic does violate the spirit of the GPL by making it that 
much harder for users of RH kernels to, for instance, apply selective 
patches.  I'm not claiming that it's not possible to de-obfuscate what 
RH has done; on the other hand, deliberately packaging your kernel 
source in a way that makes it more difficult to modify, customise and 
extend is, IMO, a definite violation of the spirit of the GPL.

The only reason I could find for RH doing this was to make the entry bar 
stiffer for competition -- there are zero technical merits for doing 
things this way.  I'm sorry, but going out of your way to make your code 
less easy to digest for your competition is a strategy practised by 
purveyors of proprietary software.

Finally, I have nothing but respect for RH, specially in the context of 
India where they have helped achieve so many significant milestones.  On 
the other hand, I wouldn't practise closed-minded jingoism supporting 
their case regardless of the merits and demerits of any individual 
action either.

Regards,

-- Raju
-- 
Raj Mathur                [email protected]      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
[email protected]
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd

Reply via email to