On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
That logic depends on a very strange interpretation of the term "restriction". The GPL doesn't narrowly define it narrowly as legal actions, it says you may not impost any further restrictions.
True, and that is why it is a loophole. You can interpret the word "restriction" in more than one way. IIUC, RH's interpretation is that "restriction" is something that is "against the law" if violated, in the sense that you can get sued by someone if you redistribute RH's code. There are no restrictions by RH, in that sense.
Whether or not this interpretation was meant when GPL was designed is an entirely different matter. IMHO, the FSF should have been more specific about what "restriction" means in the text of the GPL. But they weren't, and now RH has used this room to manouver around.
Whether something is legal or not is always open to interpretation. But it would take a valid copyright holder to challenge their right to redistribute under those terms. My name might still be mentioned somewhere in comments in the distribution but I can't claim ownership of any particular line of code, so that leaves me out.
But I don't see it as a bad thing, all in all. If you want support from RH, pay for it. If not, use CentOS or some other clone.
It's a bad thing if you think clones should exist at all. Realistically, we would all probably be better off jumping ship the day of the fedora/EL split, but I've just been too lazy to learn to spell "apt-get".