From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265326AbTF1Snh (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:43:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265329AbTF1Sng (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:43:36 -0400 Received: from pc2-cwma1-4-cust86.swan.cable.ntl.com ([213.105.254.86]:36746 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265326AbTF1Snf (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:43:35 -0400 Subject: Re: Dell vs. GPL From: Alan Cox To: Fluke Cc: linux-poweredge@dell.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Message-Id: <1056826496.6295.7.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 28 Jun 2003 19:54:56 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sad, 2003-06-28 at 06:51, Fluke wrote: > Dell is providing binary only derived works of the Linux kernel and the > modutils package at ftp://ftp.dell.com/fixes/boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz and a patch file of the relevant diff, which btw Dell engineers actually did a lot of work in figuring out why the serverworks stuff was a problem and fixing most of the bug, and sent to me. > I contacted Dell support and recieved confirmation that Dell does not > intend to provide the source code to these binary works. He explained > that all Dell fixes are licensed by Dell from third parties for use by > Dell customers in binary only form and "Dell does not intend the fixes to > be open source products." Dell support are a bit random and in my experience completely clueless when faced with anything which isnt on the script. Much like most support people. > I have also tried to contact RedHat activities but based on the responce > that I got from Mark Webbink, I don't think RedHat is prepaired to do > anything about it. Firstly they are supplying the patch in question. Secondly they are making sure people actually get it. > Is the GPL as it applies to the kernel intended to be a legal set of > requirements or simply a set of optional guidelines like Dell/RedHat seems > to be treating it? Red Hat takes all its license compliance seriously. What Dell do is their business - they've given you the patch, and yes you might want to have a discussion about getting the entire SRPM package, but do it with the right bits of Dell, and with the FSF perhaps. The FSF has no business attachments to muddy waters. There are better people to raise these issues with than Dell support personnel. Alan