[CentOS] CentOS Kernel Support

Thu Jun 14 16:23:54 UTC 2018
Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com>

On 14 June 2018 at 12:16, Peter Kjellström <cap at nsc.liu.se> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:12:30 -0500
> Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> On 06/14/18 10:00, Peter Kjellström wrote:
>> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:26:27 +0200
>> > Gianluca Cecchi <gianluca.cecchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > ...
>> >>>> The src.rpm for that kernel is probably available somewhere.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm fairly certain you cannot download the SRPM for EUS kernels.
>> >>> You might if you're a Red Hat customer paying for that product
>> >>> (but don't take my word for it).
>> > ...
>> >> I agree for the format of release (SRPM), but in any case Red Hat
>> >> should provide the sources for the changes, as the kernel is
>> >> GPL-2.0 Then one can manually try to merge them in a patched
>> >> kernel in some way... Gianluca
>> >
>> > Redhat of course complies with the GPL and provide source to the
>> > customers that get access to the binary packages. They are not
>> > required to provide the sources to anyone else.
>> GPL requires to provide source if everything derived from the
>> original source to everybody, not only to customers. And RedHat was
>> ever compliant with GPL. Kudos to RedHat! So, if there exist patched
>> kernels of out of support life, they should be downloadable somewhere
>> somehow.
> No you are minunderstanding the GPL.
> You are only required to provide source to those who got the binary
> artifact(s). They then have the full GPL rights to further modify etc.
> In many cases the binaries are distributed to everyone and then so is
> the source. In other cases (such as RHEL) only source is provided to
> everyone (but that is fine too).
> Consider a simpler case: I make a copy of a existing GPL pkg. I modify
> this and use it myself. I do not have to share my changes with anyone.
> My copy is still GPL though..
> ..so if I give a copy of the source to a friend it no longer matters
> (to him/her) wether I made that source public before or not. They can
> modify or not and make available publicly or not.
> Had I sent my friend a binary copy he/she would have had the right to
> require me to also hand over the source.
> None of us would have any obligations to a 3rd party.

To back up Peter on this, here are some relevant links from the FSF.


The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any
part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately,
without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including
companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use
it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the
GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the
program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in
certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to
release it is up to you.
Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a
nondisclosure agreement? (#DevelopChangesUnderNDA)
Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and
agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is
permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being
distributed under an NDA.

You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but
agree not to release them to anyone else unless the client says ok. In
this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA,
or under any additional restrictions.

The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version.
In this scenario, the client will probably choose not to exercise that
right, but does have the right.


There are other questions in the FAQ which also cover this.

> /Peter
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Stephen J Smoogen.