[linux-elitists] Red Hat, crappy RPMS not complying with the GPL?

Ragnar Hojland Espinosa ragnar@linalco.com
Thu Nov 27 08:52:52 PST 2003


The silly question of the day.  

I was attempting to compile the SRPMS for RHAS 2.1.  Fun fun.  tetex
doesnt work, none of the 2.4.18s work, due to RPM breakage. Sayyy:

MAKEFLAGS=-j3 rpm --rebuild kernel-2.4.18-e.37.src.rpm
[...]

+ patch -p1 -s
The next patch would delete the file
drivers/message/fusion/mptlinux.txt,
which does not exist!  Assume -R? [n] y
The next patch would delete the file
drivers/message/fusion/t10.org/asc-num.txt,
which does not exist!  Assume -R? [n] y
+ echo 'Patch #2510 (linux-2.5-stack-random.patch):'
Patch #2510 (linux-2.5-stack-random.patch):
+ patch -p1 -s
+ echo 'Patch #2520 (linux-2.4.18-ipc.patch):'
Patch #2520 (linux-2.4.18-ipc.patch):
+ patch -p1 -s
+ echo 'Patch #2530 (linux-2.4.20-nethashfix.patch):'
Patch #2530 (linux-2.4.20-nethashfix.patch):
+ patch -p1 -s
+ echo 'Patch #2540 (linux-2.4.20-acpi.patch):'
Patch #2540 (linux-2.4.20-acpi.patch):
+ patch -p1 -s
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|diff -u ./bus.c
/trees/taroon/BUILD/kernel-2.4.20/linux-2.4.20/drivers/acpi/bus.c
|--- linux/drivers/acpi/bus.c   2003-06-11 15:48:40.000000000 -0400
|+++ linux-2.4.20/drivers/acpi/bus.c    2003-06-10 14:05:12.000000000
-0400
--------------------------
File to patch:

Woopsie.  And then you have:


"
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.  However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
"

considering this is considered production code, and that there is a
RPM binary out there, wouldn't you think that these RPMs dont comply
with the GPL?

Feeling picky today, yeah.
-- 
Ragnar Hojland - Project Manager
Linalco "Specialists in Linux and Free Software"
http://www.linalco.com  Tel: +34-91-4561700



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list