5 ms·
My Assumption would be Section 1.4 over rides in the case of Source Code which is governed by GPL and implicitly allows redistribution, that is the entire purp
by phpisthebest 3y ago
My Assumption would be Section 1.4 over rides in the case of Source Code which is governed by GPL and implicitly allows redistribution, that is the entire purpose of CopyLeft
So the prohibition on "redistribution" in this context would be on the compiled binaries. i.e you could not pay for a subscription and then mirror the yum repos publicly.
- tw04 3y agoYou're conflating your legal right to redistribute the software (they can't sue you) to your contractual right to redistribute (them terminating your support contract). They cannot sue you for redistributing the software, or claim damages because you did so. They can ABSOLUTELY tell you that your right to the subscription is terminated if you do so.
- phpisthebest 3y agoI am not conflating anything, I am reading section 1.4 of the agreement which specifically 1.4 that says > Agreement establishes the rights and obligations associated with Subscription Services and is not intended to limit your rights to software code under the terms of an open source license So if the preceding section 1.2(F) and 1.2(G) do prohibit redistribution of SOURCE CODE, then it is in fact limiting your rights under to software code under the terms of an open source license. 1.2(F) and 1.2(G) would limit your right to distribute "software" generally defined a complied code, but not source code.
- freedomben 3y agoYep you can redistribute it. But they can terminate your subscription so they don't have to give you the next round of updates. Basically a new "customer" would have to pop up and leak the sources each time there is an update to a package for a bug-for-bug RHEL clone to exist