5 ms·

How does this not violate the GPL?

• matthews2 3y ago
  The GPL says I must give you access to the source along with the binaries, but it doesn't say I need to give you updates indefinitely.
  • Vogtinator 3y ago
    I'm referring to the "You can redistribute the source, but then we'll cancel support" part which appears to be part of the terms and conditions.
• mroche 3y ago
  It does not. As the other comment in this thread notes there are two agreements in play here: the open source license agreements and Red Hat's Enterprise Agreement. Under no circumstances can Red Hat prevent an entity from sharing their FOSS software, however they can absolutely view that action as a violation of the EA Contract, and terminate the subscription. This doesn't undo the action, but prevents further access to updates and sources.
• vbezhenar 3y ago
  Why should it violate GPL? RHEL is obliged to provide source code for their GPL packages. You ask for source code, you'll get it. You distribute the source code, RH will terminate the contract with you because they don't want to see you as a customer anymore. They're free to do business with whoever they want, peeking people who will not distribute RH sources. Every party is in their right here. That's my understanding. Red Hat did that for many years. They maintain extended support branches for RHEL which provide fixes for very old software. Those fixes AFAIK were never "leaked" despite the fact that every customer could receive it. If it was as simple as crowd-funding single subscription and then publish all the sources, someone would do it and we would have CentOS Extended LTS.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]