On 06/14/18 11:16, Peter Kjellstr?m 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 Kjellstr?m 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.It turns out you are absolutely right. You only have provide modified source to users to whom you distribute derived work. Found it here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic I stand corrected. Thanks! Valeri> > 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. > > /Peter >-- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 2018-06-14, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote:> > It turns out you are absolutely right. You only have provide modified > source to users to whom you distribute derived work. Found it here: > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublicNot totally relevant to this thread, but relevant to repeating: since the code is still GPLv2, if RedHat shares its code with me, I can still redistribute freely, even though RedHat is not necessarily redistributing to the general public. RedHat can not prevent me from redistribution even though I obtained the code under a paid support contract. (At that point RH has zero obligation to anybody who downloads from me, of course.) --keith -- kkeller at wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
On 06/15/2018 01:33 PM, Keith Keller wrote:> On 2018-06-14, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: >> >> It turns out you are absolutely right. You only have provide modified >> source to users to whom you distribute derived work. Found it here: >> >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic > > Not totally relevant to this thread, but relevant to repeating: since > the code is still GPLv2, if RedHat shares its code with me, I can still > redistribute freely, even though RedHat is not necessarily > redistributing to the general public. RedHat can not prevent me from > redistribution even though I obtained the code under a paid support > contract. (At that point RH has zero obligation to anybody who > downloads from me, of course.) > > --keith >Yes they can // well, yes and no. You agreed to an EULA that says you will not distribute things that you get from that paid subscription. You can do it, and be in violation of the terms of your subscription. Then, you could lose said subscription privileges. You could modify it for your own use though. The CentOS team would never distribute anything in that manner. Or allow it to be distributed on CentOS.org machines/services. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20180615/1a9ad34f/attachment-0001.sig>