[CentOS] What happened to 6.1

Fri Oct 28 20:36:49 UTC 2011
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com>

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