elmerfud
18 hours ago
I'm unclear how this shows a GPL violation. Because there's no files ending in the word patch? Are you suggesting that the spec file does not result in the same RPM as what is being delivered?
hi-v-rocknroll
17 hours ago
No. Did you even look? Modifying sources without releasing the changes. Sources maybe "released" to a degree, but it's more like malicious compliance not in the spirit of FLOSS.
elmerfud
12 hours ago
I did look and again I'm asking are you saying if I attempt to use this spec file to build the RPM am I getting something different than the RPM that was released? Is that your complaint that you can't build from the source rpm? Because if you can build from The source RPM then the sources were released or at least the spec file contains links to the sources.
That's why I would like you to be a whole lot more specific are they delivering a compiled RPM that you cannot take the source RPM and build the same thing from it. Throwing out a command to have me install a source RPM and then cat for files ending in the word patch isn't describing your problem.
Maybe you're complaint is they didn't release a diff between their changes and mainline kernel, is that it? If that's the complaint you might need to take another look at the GPL. Because releasing source is releasing source and is not required to release a diff or create a pull request or any of those other things. If you need a diff because you want to borrow some of their changes those are trivial to make on your own.
Suppafly
16 hours ago
>but it's more like malicious compliance not in the spirit of FLOSS.
Isn't the spirit of FLOSS mostly based around the idea of malicious compliance?