> (Note: last month the GRSecurity Team removed the public testing patch, > they prevent the distribution of the patch by paying customers by a > threat of no further business: they have concocted a transparent scheme > to make sure the intention of the Linux rights-holders (thousands of > entities) are defeated) (This is unlike RedHat who do distribute their > patches in the form the rights-holders prefer: source code, RedHat does > not attempt to stymie the redistribution of their derivative works, > GRSecurity does.). I don't think Red Hat distributes the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 kernels to the general public, only to customers who have entered a subscription agreement. Debranded kernel sources are available from centos.org, though. Based on what I have read, the legal construction for the Red Hat agreement and the grsecurity agreement are somewhat similar. Source code access is a subscription service (among many others in the case of Red Hat), and you cannot use a subscription to provide the very same service you obtain from the provider to third parties. The situation with Red Hat Enterprise Linux is further complicated because as part of the subscription services, subscribers can access the Red Hat Code Browser, which provides broken-out and fully cross-referenced kernel patches, something that is not available as part of the CentOS offering. The GPL certainly allows subscribers to share these patches freely (and almost all of them are just backports from upstream anyway), but I think Red Hat's intent is that this is not permitted while the subscription agreement is in force. (And subscribers are expected not to use these patches to support their own kernel backporting efforts, either.) _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
