4 ms·
> They won't release sources for those packages unless you'll ask for those packages (you, as a paid client, not you as nobody in the Internet). If the code in
by wang_li 6y ago
> They won't release sources for those packages unless you'll ask for those packages (you, as a paid client, not you as nobody in the Internet).
If the code in question is licensed under the GPL and Red Hat isn't the owner of the code, then I as a rando on the Internet can ask them for the source and if they don't provide it, the person who does own the code can sue them and revoke their license to distribute said code. And I'd say that the majority of code in RHEL is not owned by Red Hat.
- bonzini 6y agoYou can only ask them for the source if you already have the binaries and you've gotten them from Red Hat. If you got the binaries from someone else, you can ask that someone else.
- wang_li 6y agoCan you help me understand why GPL v2 3(b) doesn't obligate Red Hat to provide source code for the kernel, as an example, to anyone who asks? >3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: > b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
- bonzini 6y agoBecause Red Hat offers source code following section 3(a) instead. Thus, section 3(b) does not apply.
- wang_li 6y agoReally? When I do a yum update on my rhel systems to get the latest updates from rhn, they never download the source code. Now that I think about it, I don't think RH has even sent me any kind of medium which is commonly used for interchange.
- vbezhenar 6y agoI think that access to the private repository is considered a distribution. You have access to the sources with `dnf download --source` or something like that. The fact that those sources originally are on the remote server probably is not significant in 2020.
- bonzini 6y agoGPLv2 was written in 1991. GPLv3 changes the wording in Section 3(a) to "durable physical medium", but at the same time it gives other possibility including "Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge". Everyone was doing network distribution of GPL software long before GPLv3 came out, effectively treating a download as a medium customarily used for software interchange. Not a physical one, but GPLv2 does not say anything about that.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dralley 6y agoThat is not how the GPL works. The GPL only entitles you to the source code of software for which you have been provided binaries. If the software has not been provided to you in binary form, you have no claim to the source. This is why the cloud providers can get away with custom in-house patches to the Linux kernel.
- toyg 6y agoYep, this is actually one of those things Stallman has been saying for decades and people like to ignore: the GPL doesn’t mean all code must be in the public domain, only that users of a given program should be able to modify it. There are a number of ways to allow for that while still keeping distribution restricted.