On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Robert Scheck <robert(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> I agree on coordination however re-using a spec cannot be called
> stealing by any means.
How else would you call stealing then? A Red Hat employee has grabbed
my package and used it for RHEL - so far, so good.
I believe Stealing is a criminal term: : to take the property of
another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice.
It has definite meanings and should be prosecuted as such. But I am
not sure any such case can be made:
1) The package is MIT Licensed. Spec files are usually licensed as the
mother package so changes/forks etc would be done via MIT unless
specified different in the SPEC file.
2) The Fedora CLA says that you have given Red Hat the right to
redistribute your works as they see fit.
3) I don't see anything in the CLA or MIT license that says they have
to make %changelog entries.
However, in the end.. this is yet again poor customer relations where
the customer is the contributor who is doing a lot of the work for Red
Hat. It has made you pissed and will become one of those things that
people point to of why Red Hat is a pot calling the kettle black about
While I don't think this raises to the level of the Novell iFolder
debacle it is time to see what RH community people (*cough* Greg
DeKoenigsberg *cough*) can do within Red Hat to help better make these
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"