
Red Hat: 'Yes, we undercut Oracle with hidden Linux patches' - tuxychandru
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2011/03/04/red_hat_twarts_oracle_and_novell_with_change_to_source_code_packaging/
======
chalst
Quoting Russ Herold from the article: _Nothing in Red Hat's new approach
prevents a person from running a local version-control system, containing the
pristine kernel at point A, and the Red Hat variant which we might call point
B. Then one runs a 'diff' in that version-control system between A and B, and
starts reading the diffs to see what is happening. Over time, both the
pristine kernel, and the patched Red Hat versions will vary, and one will get
a sense for which 'diff' parts matter, and which are cosmetic cleanups._

This actually sounds labour intensive.

From the Centos mailing list, Johnny Hughes writes: _That is not to say I like
the changes, as it will have impacts ... but as long as they only do it to the
kernel, it is not a big problem._

[http://www.linux-archive.org/centos/497467-will-centos-
becom...](http://www.linux-archive.org/centos/497467-will-centos-become-
obsolete-now-because-changes-red-hat-implementing.html)

------
pessimizer
I wish I could say that I don't think this is compatible with the GPL, simply
because I don't like it, but I can't. This seems like a good move for their
bottom line. It'll suck for CentOS users though.

~~~
acdha
CentOS users are basically free-loading, though, so if this bothers them
they'd probably be better switching to a pure-community effort like Debian. If
they're using CentOS because their company uses it, their boss can also pony
up for some Red Hat licenses if they encounter problems.

~~~
davidw
Once you release your work under an open source license, you've pretty much
declared that "free-riding" is ok, to a certain extent.

I mean, if you look at it, Red hat itself gets a lot of free input. Although
they also do contribute a lot themselves, I'm sure they receive more open
source software than they create.

~~~
acdha
Open source != support. CentOS is using GPLed code, which is perfectly fine,
but they have not reason to expect Red Hat to help them support it or
otherwise do anything other than release changes.

In this case, the value added by CentOS is relatively small - mostly hosting -
and so it's not particularly persuasive when people complain about Red Hat,
which currently provides considerably more to the community even without
detailed change logs.

