On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 8:48 AM Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 8:15 AM Phil Perry <pperry at elrepo.org> wrote: > > > > On 26/06/2023 11:12, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 9:44 AM Simon Matter <simon.matter at invoca.ch> wrote: > > > > The kernel is GPL, so "yes", as long as you're willing to make any > > > changes you add to the source code available to people who get the > > > binaries. Do review the GPL, it's an interesting license. > > > > However, my understanding is that Red Hat are saying or implying that by > > redistributing the source, you are in breach of their T&C's (not the > > GPL) and as such they would have the right to terminate your contract > > meaning you would no longer have access to said sources. (Please review > > the T&Cs you agreed with Red Hat as a paying customer) > > Wow. I'm staring at the RHEL 9 kernel, and "rpm -qi output: > > License : GPLv2 and Redistributable, no modification permitted > > That.... is confusing, and is one of the reasons for the GPLv3. As I > understand that particular kernel, it means "you can't modify it and > claim new copyrights or licenses". I admit that it's confusing, and a > casual reading would discourage people from locally patching and > publishing their modified kernels. But I've not published tweaked > kernels in years. It is indeed confusing. The explanation there is that the Linux Kernel source code is published under GPLv2. There are also firmware blobs built into the kernel for legacy reasons (true upstream as well), and those are licensed as redistributable but not modifiable. The RPM License stanza is supposed to represent all licenses included, so you have both listed. josh