4 ms·
> I'm not convinced that this even violates the spirit of the GPL. It doesn't. And this "loophole" is old. In days of yore, GPL "compliance" could be "Fine,
by bsder 3y ago
> I'm not convinced that this even violates the spirit of the GPL.
It doesn't. And this "loophole" is old.
In days of yore, GPL "compliance" could be "Fine, here's a magtape of the source."--with no build instructions.
This is effectively what RedHat just did.
Andy, you know, I'm kind of sympathetic. If you want "certified" Linux, then you should have to pay the company that went through the grief to go get the certifications.
- fragmede 3y agoRight. When I was at Ksplice, RedHat provided their changes to the kernel source as a monolithic patch file, which certainly abides by the letter of the law, but individual patches would have been so much more helpful.