From simo.sorce@xsec.it Sat May 25 16:25:32 2002
On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 12:35, Joerg Schilling wrote:
BTW: Red Hat in general is not very GPL friendly...
I'm not the defender of anyone, but can you explain this statement? Putting such ana ccusation on a public list without proof is not fair.
What is unfair with telling the truth?
I've seen red-hat releasing most (if not all) of his code with the GPL license so far, so I cannot see why you say they are not-GPL friendly. So far, in my experience, it seem that red-hat has been one of the most free software friendly commercial GNU/Linux distribution. I can be wrong of course.
Some time ago, I made a proposal to include some (non-read hat) code covered by GPL. The answer was: We are not allowed to include code that has not been coded by Red Hat employees.
include into what ?
If you had read my mail you would not have to ask....
knowing your diplomacy may be you simply got it wrong ... (but that's my opinion based only on the flames you have made on this list)
?????
As I already told you:
I made the proposal to add some GPL'd software to Cygwin.
To be more specific, it was ACL related SW from the Linux development. The responsible people from red hat told me that they cannot include such code because read hat only allows them to use code for cygwin that has been written by RH people.
This is devinitive a non GPL friendly behavior. The only reason to behave like this is that RH sells non-GPL versions and thus would get problems with the other code.
I hope that you are no able to believe me...
Jörg
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 schilling@fokus.gmd.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I made the proposal to add some GPL'd software to Cygwin.
To be more specific, it was ACL related SW from the Linux development. The responsible people from red hat told me that they cannot include such code because read hat only allows them to use code for cygwin that has been written by RH people.
This is devinitive a non GPL friendly behavior. The only reason to behave like this is that RH sells non-GPL versions and thus would get problems with the other code.
I see you point, and your concern, but you do see red hats reasons. A lot of ppl have done similiar things (although just because everyone else does yadda yadda). Even GNU won't include GPL'ed code if they don't own it. The GNU ppl have a document on it - including reasons about being able to protect it better, protecting against various scenarios that I've brought up on this mailing list - that involve reversing a GPL license on software, etc.
JohnFlux