On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko at 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". -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com