Chris I agree, stealing is not the right word - i guess "steering away" would sound more appropraite, but you get the context :)
-ilya -----Original Message----- From: Chris Adams [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 3:29 PM To: Musayev, Ilya Cc: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 (Santiago) discussion mailing-list Subject: Re: RHEL6 kernel 2.6.32-71.14.1.el6.x86_64 panic... Once upon a time, Musayev, Ilya <[email protected]> said: > I'm under assumption, this also explains why latest RHEL release notes > disclose the bug numbers with slight description of what was discovered but > when you try to open the BZ id, it tells you that you dont have permissions - > essentially hiding all the details. This is probably a way of showing a > middle finger to Oracle but unintentianlly also to everyone else. Most RHEL bugs that are put in BZ from RH support are like that, as they can contain customer-private information (I haven't seen any big change in that). > I think they could have addressed this issue with new licensing clause that > would forbid Oracle like usage and possible permit community release - like > CentOS. Come to think about it - CentOS also steals a large piece of "would > be financial gain" pie - there are countless commercial CentOS users outthere. Calling what CentOS does "stealing" is rather rude. Red Hat can't really use any new licensing clauses that would prevent something like CentOS or Oracle anyway (the kernel is already GPLv2 for example). This change just makes it more difficult for others that want to cherry-pick patches from RHEL kernels and apply them to their own (which AFAIK Oracle is the only major group doing that). -- Chris Adams <[email protected]> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. _______________________________________________ rhelv6-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list
