When you buy a RHEL machine, you actually buy an RHN subscription that includes a full copy of the source corresponding to the binaries you installed. Okay technically there's copies up on ftp too, which is why there's a CentOS.
When you buy an Android machine, you don't buy a promise from Google to give you the source. In fact if you're Google you go out of your way to delay public source releases of Android. Your recourse is to the vendor who sold you the device, because the odds are good that stock Android isn't going to run on your phone. And we see how that's gone.
I'm not saying your argument is invalid. In both cases, you don't want to sue your customers. But one of these companies has made a good-faith effort to make GPL compliance trivial, and one has actively shirked that duty. Red Hat probably would pursue GPL infringement if it were losing them RHEL sales (you'll note CentOS and Scientific are squeaky clean here). Google probably would not pursue GPL infringement because the per-seat cost of Android is not where they make money.
Now if you're saying Red Hat should allow the use of its copyright on the kernel as leverage in all GPL enforcement cases, well, yes, probably it should, morally speaking. It's a little difficult to justify that to the shareholders, I expect, since that's a lot of lawyer time for no increase in revenue. But if you can come up with a way to do it I bet there's some counsel that would love to talk to you.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 11:46 am (UTC)When you buy a RHEL machine, you actually buy an RHN subscription that includes a full copy of the source corresponding to the binaries you installed. Okay technically there's copies up on ftp too, which is why there's a CentOS.
When you buy an Android machine, you don't buy a promise from Google to give you the source. In fact if you're Google you go out of your way to delay public source releases of Android. Your recourse is to the vendor who sold you the device, because the odds are good that stock Android isn't going to run on your phone. And we see how that's gone.
I'm not saying your argument is invalid. In both cases, you don't want to sue your customers. But one of these companies has made a good-faith effort to make GPL compliance trivial, and one has actively shirked that duty. Red Hat probably would pursue GPL infringement if it were losing them RHEL sales (you'll note CentOS and Scientific are squeaky clean here). Google probably would not pursue GPL infringement because the per-seat cost of Android is not where they make money.
Now if you're saying Red Hat should allow the use of its copyright on the kernel as leverage in all GPL enforcement cases, well, yes, probably it should, morally speaking. It's a little difficult to justify that to the shareholders, I expect, since that's a lot of lawyer time for no increase in revenue. But if you can come up with a way to do it I bet there's some counsel that would love to talk to you.