https://twitter.com/jonoberheide/status/857243764800225280 … It will still be GPLv2 since customers are paying for sources licensed as GPLv2. Legally, they could publish it.
I've also seen multiple people make this claim (maybe c&p'd from HN or something?) and as far as I can tell it's nonsense.
-
-
I don't read HN. I could just be confused.
-
OK, just a guess - surprising that I'd seen that same (seemingly wrong) example from multiple ppl arguing about grsec.
-
Red Hat will terminate your support agreement if you publish stuff, IIRC.
-
Still have access to the public sources, but they intentionally obfuscate stuff by applying all the patches and giving tarballs of result.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Full source to RHEL kernels is available and nobody tries to scare you that Redhat won't sell you a new version if you share it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's not nonsense. RHEL distributed kernels as source tarballs, patches for subscribers only, sharing patches leads to support termination.
-
It's not sharing the source that's bad, it's sharing the patchset that produced the source tarball, rather than the source tarball itself.
-
So it's not an identical situation, but it's precedent for "exercising GPLv2 rights is punished at a business contract level" being in place
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.