On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 8:38 AM, A. Mani <a.mani....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves > <law...@thenilgiris.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 05:10 +0530, A. Mani wrote: > >> See http://lwn.net/Articles/430098/ > >> > >> It is a GPL violation. > > > > it is not > > > The main argument would be > > "The GPL says quite plainly: > > The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for > making modifications to it. > > Whether combining lots of patches into one large patch constitutes a > change in "form" would be an argument for the lawyers if this ever > goes to court, which I very much doubt. > > In my opinion, however, the case is pretty clear -- you simply do not > modify that large a patch file. Therefore it's not a "preferred form". > Therefore Red Hat is, ideally if not materially, in breach of the > GPL." > > In my opinion, "preferred form" simply refers to the source code not automatically generated or obfuscated. It does not mean that the creator must make it as easy as they possibly can to create derived works. So, from my perhaps-not-sufficiently-informed viewpoint, what Red Hat is doing seems well within the boundaries of the GPL. Not being given access to internal VCS information is in the same league as not being given access to the internal defect tracker information. Infact if Red Hat had been doing that it is doing now from the very start then no one would have even batted an eyelid. Freedom being taken away is much worse than not having it in the first place. -- Anupam _______________________________________________ Ilugd mailing list Ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
