Grrr... the original messages were not to the ilugd mailing list, were they? It is frustrating to reply without getting the context.
Raju Mathur said on Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 08:19:41AM +0530,: > 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. 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. And by way of a gentle reminder, and more important, you (Raju) was, IIRC are one of the first customers in India of a mobile phone running the linux kernel. You would have looked up what it takes to get source code to that manufacturer's version of the kernel as running on that phone. -- Mahesh T. Pai || >From The Devil's Dictionary (1881-1906) [devil]: LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law. _______________________________________________ Ilugd mailing list Ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
