Free software, its supporters are often eager to point out, is about choice. This might be the choice to use KDE or GNOME, KWord or AbiWord, vi or emacs; but that is only the tip of the iceberg. The choice isn't merely to use one tool in favor of another, but to choose to modify that tool to whatever degree you deem necessary to meet your needs. Red Hat has exercised this freedom with Psyche in accordance with the licensing schemes of the affected projects. If this seems particularly onerous to you, respond by exercising your power of choice: do not bolster Red Hat's activities by supporting their product, and present your reasoning for this decision to others in a reasonable, logical manner. Flaming others in support of a certain viewpoint often does more damage than good to the cause, after all. What kind of message do we as a community send when we shout about freedom of choice from one side of our collective mouth while condemning Red Hat (or anyone else) out the other side for exercising that very freedom in a manner we find personally objectionable?
Mandrake, SuSE and many other distributions ship more or less unmodified KDE packages. ELX, Lycoris, Lindows, and Xandros (and probably others) ship versions of KDE with modifications ranging from slight to sweeping depending on the distribution. Often, these "enhancements" are marketed near the top of the list of "unique, must-have" features. How many awful things have you heard about Lindows? How many of those awful things centered specifically on the heavily modified KDE that is the heart of Lindows' desktop? How many times have you heard Xandros criticized for continually letting shipping dates slip? How many times have you heard it criticized for shipping a modified KDE?
Red Hat, of all the distribution producers, is seen by and large as "more corporate" than the others (with the notable exception of the much maligned Lindows). As such, Red Hat is often seen as somehow more threatening than the others, leading to the obligatory shouting by certain members of the community of: "Red Hat wants to be the Microsoft of Linux! Resist! Resist before it's too late!" This is not the closed source world, where Microsoft (or any other entity, such as Apple in the Macintosh world or Sun in the high-end server arena) reigns from on high and does whatever it wants, safe in the knowledge that users will fall in line simply because they have no other choice. Apple's legendary stability and ease of use stems from its tight control of its products, for which it is generally lauded by its users. Microsoft, by virtue of being orders of magnitude larger (and subsequently more threatening) than Apple, is widely condemned for attempting to exercise such control over every aspect of the end user experience (such as driver signing, and software and hardware certification). Arguably, this is why in a very real sense the Macintosh user experience may be superior to the Windows user experience: Microsoft is placed in the unenviable position of having to support a nearly limitless array of PC configurations, often using low-quality hardware, while Apple is not. There's a lesson in that, to be sure, but in the end it just doesn't matter when the topic at hand is Linux: the rules that govern the closed source computing world simply do not apply to open source projects such as Linux. There can be no monopoly in such a system. The open source software model was carefully crafted from the ground up specifically to prevent such an eventuality.
Red Hat literally cannot become the "Microsoft of Linux". Microsoft's source code is jealously guarded and fiercely protected, Red Hat's is available to anyone who wants it, not just for viewing but for modification and reuse by anyone. Red Hat, should it misbehave badly enough to anger a large enough faction, could be undone with its own code. It bears repeating: the open source world is not structured to tolerate a monopoly. Red Hat is a service company, and as such its primary interest is in supporting its Linux distribution. Any changes Red Hat makes to its distribution must be viewed in this light. Suggesting that Red Hat is intentionally including software in the form of a modified KDE just to harm an open source project is suggesting that the (allegedly) fearfully ambitious corporation that is Red Hat is run by a gaggle of fools eager to commit financial suicide. Red Hat's primary interest is in supporting its distribution, remember. One finds it hard to believe the company would ship an intentionally broken or inferior product which would only serve the dual purpose of increasing the burden of providing support and of alienating the company's paying customers -- not you and I, but Red Hat's real customers, corporates with volume buying power and millions to spend on software support contracts. Whatever the end result and eventual outcome of these changes, you can rest assured that Red Hat did not intentionally set out to ship bad software. Working within the confines of the GPL, Red Hat set out to minimize support needs and associated costs and to maximize user experience as they see it for their target user base.
Open source projects which chafe at Red Hat's (or any other entity's) handling of their code within the legal -- if not moral or ethical, unquantifiable as such things are -- confines of the project's licensing might wish to take a closer look at their choice of licensing. Is it acceptable to claim a project is "free" in all senses of the word -- but only so long as:
1) The exercise of those freedoms are "acceptable" (whatever the consensus on that might be at any given time among the project's many developers) and
2) so long as the entity making the changes is "friendly" with the free software project in question (again, how does one quantify this?)
me point out here that I am not aiming criticism at the KDE
project or its developers, but at the large number of various people
who have condemned Red Hat (often based on wildly incorrect data and
vague rumors) for modifying KDE. The vast majority of these people
aren't affiliated with KDE at all, except maybe as simple users. To
these people, I say this: A project is either free or it is not. The
GPL does not provide for the arbitrary picking and choosing of
entities "worthy" to participate in those freedoms. That is
just one among many of the checks and balances the elegant simplicity
of the GPL provides to prevent development stagnation (anyone can
fork a project and try to do a better job than those handling the
original) and to stop cold the ability of any one entity to summarily
take over a project (for the very same reason). The GPL, love it or
hate it, is the cornerstone of Linux development. So long as the GPL
remains effective neither Red Hat nor any other distributor will be
capable of -- or sanely interested in -- "taking over"
Linux in whole or in part. It seems that former Windows users,
accustomed to Microsoft's (and others') business tactics, are wary
perhaps to the point of paranoia about such things and immediately
suspect the worst whenever what appears to be purely corporate
interests are involved with their computing experience. The idea of a
takeover and the subsequent destruction of choice that would follow
is a legitimate fear in the closed source world, but attempting to
supply a rationale for it in the open source world depends on a
logical fallacy. Any entity attempting such a thing would be met with
failure and rejection. Odd that the most successful of all Linux
distributors should be accused of charting just such a course for
disaster on a such a regular basis, don't you think?