5 ms·

Really? It's so non-free that you have CentOS.

by ergo14 8y ago

bubblethink 8y ago
Yes, but as a customer of RH, you are not allowed to distribute RH's binaries, or they will terminate your contract. That is also against the spirit of the GPL, although not necessarily the letter. You can take the source, remove the branding, recompile, and redistribute, which is similar to what CentOS does/used to. However, the GPL allows the former too. i.e., You can straight up distribute the binaries under GPL.
- timdierks 8y ago
  This is simply not true: it's explicitly not the intent of the GPL, and furthermore the GPL is clearly a contract which explicitly spells out its intent, not a vague document whose spirit needs to be interpreted.
  - bubblethink 8y ago
    It is explicit in the freedoms it grants you, one of which being the freedom to distribute copies. The intent is pretty clear. The RH workaround to that is that if you exercise this freedom, they will not do business with you in the future. You got to exercise your freedom, but only once. The GPL doesn't have recourse for that.
    - Frondo 8y ago
      You can redistribute the source, and that's what really matters. No one ever made any claims to redistributing binaries, and that's neither the letter nor the spirit of th GPL. The GPL is about user freedom, which relies on source code. The whole thing came about because Richard only had access to binaries for that printer. And it makes sense that RedHat wouldn't want you to distribute their binaries...who's to say you didn't backdoor them? That's their name on the line, too.
      - bubblethink 8y ago
        >You can redistribute the source, and that's what really matters. No one ever made any claims to redistributing binaries From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html: "Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so. ..... The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. "
      - rcdwealth 8y ago
        Free software binaries are freely redistributable. Source code need not be provided with binaries as long as there is offered method on how to get the sources. Thus free software binaries can be copied and distributed as many times as one wishes, and without source code, as long as there is access to source code, for example, by writing a letter with the request or by providing the download link. It should be same source code by which binaries have been made.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - sigzero 8y ago
      In reading that, the GPL is working as it should.
- mcny 8y ago
  Yes, it does seem against the spirit of freedom 2. » The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html But it seems strange to even think that Red Hat would do anything that violates the idea of free software. Surely there must be about angle to it that we have not considered?
  - privateSFacct 8y ago
    They don't want you redistributing something called Redhat Enterprise Linux after you backdoor it?
    - bubblethink 8y ago
      That is a different argument for a different set of circumstances pertaining to modification. To contrast, you could be a Canonical customer, and distribute the ubuntu DVDs and mirror their repos to your heart's content. You can't if you are a RH customer.
    - rcdwealth 8y ago
      Distribution of binaries is allowed. It is another matter and subject on how to properly use trademarks.
      - neltnerb 8y ago
        Right, I remember this coming up with Iceweasel because of Firefox trademarks. https://lwn.net/Articles/676799/ https://lwn.net/Articles/676799/
    - delinka 8y ago
      How's that any different from: compiling from source with malicious modifications and then branding the resulting binaries with "RedHat"?
- sfifs 8y ago
  GPL very explicitly refers to the right to distribute source code. It is not concerned with binaries. That was an explicit choice since the license spirit is about user freedom which concerns access to sources and modifying sources. See clause #1: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html
  - bubblethink 8y ago
    Thanks. Following that, section 3 goes on to say "copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form". So it doesn't seem to preclude re-distribution of binaries, as long as you follow the terms.

Really? It's so non-free that you have CentOS.

by ergo14 8y ago

Really? It's so non-free that you have CentOS.

Yes, but as a customer of RH, you are not allowed to distribute RH's binaries, or they will terminate your contract. That is also against the spirit of the GPL, although not necessarily the letter. You can take the source, remove the branding, recompile, and redistribute, which is similar to what CentOS does/used to. However, the GPL allows the former too. i.e., You can straight up distribute the binaries under GPL.

timdierks 8y ago
This is simply not true: it's explicitly not the intent of the GPL, and furthermore the GPL is clearly a contract which explicitly spells out its intent, not a vague document whose spirit needs to be interpreted.
- bubblethink 8y ago
  It is explicit in the freedoms it grants you, one of which being the freedom to distribute copies. The intent is pretty clear. The RH workaround to that is that if you exercise this freedom, they will not do business with you in the future. You got to exercise your freedom, but only once. The GPL doesn't have recourse for that.
  - Frondo 8y ago
    You can redistribute the source, and that's what really matters. No one ever made any claims to redistributing binaries, and that's neither the letter nor the spirit of th GPL. The GPL is about user freedom, which relies on source code. The whole thing came about because Richard only had access to binaries for that printer. And it makes sense that RedHat wouldn't want you to distribute their binaries...who's to say you didn't backdoor them? That's their name on the line, too.
    - bubblethink 8y ago
      >You can redistribute the source, and that's what really matters. No one ever made any claims to redistributing binaries From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html: "Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so. ..... The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. "
    - rcdwealth 8y ago
      Free software binaries are freely redistributable. Source code need not be provided with binaries as long as there is offered method on how to get the sources. Thus free software binaries can be copied and distributed as many times as one wishes, and without source code, as long as there is access to source code, for example, by writing a letter with the request or by providing the download link. It should be same source code by which binaries have been made.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - sigzero 8y ago
    In reading that, the GPL is working as it should.
mcny 8y ago
Yes, it does seem against the spirit of freedom 2. » The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html But it seems strange to even think that Red Hat would do anything that violates the idea of free software. Surely there must be about angle to it that we have not considered?
- privateSFacct 8y ago
  They don't want you redistributing something called Redhat Enterprise Linux after you backdoor it?
  - bubblethink 8y ago
    That is a different argument for a different set of circumstances pertaining to modification. To contrast, you could be a Canonical customer, and distribute the ubuntu DVDs and mirror their repos to your heart's content. You can't if you are a RH customer.
  - rcdwealth 8y ago
    Distribution of binaries is allowed. It is another matter and subject on how to properly use trademarks.
    - neltnerb 8y ago
      Right, I remember this coming up with Iceweasel because of Firefox trademarks. https://lwn.net/Articles/676799/ https://lwn.net/Articles/676799/
  - delinka 8y ago
    How's that any different from: compiling from source with malicious modifications and then branding the resulting binaries with "RedHat"?
sfifs 8y ago
GPL very explicitly refers to the right to distribute source code. It is not concerned with binaries. That was an explicit choice since the license spirit is about user freedom which concerns access to sources and modifying sources. See clause #1: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html
- bubblethink 8y ago
  Thanks. Following that, section 3 goes on to say "copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form". So it doesn't seem to preclude re-distribution of binaries, as long as you follow the terms.