3 ms·
> In the past, customers have been able to redistribute the RHEL repos freely. I assume that will remain the case as long as CentOS Stream is open source. Ther
by mroche 3y ago
> In the past, customers have been able to redistribute the RHEL repos freely. I assume that will remain the case as long as CentOS Stream is open source.
There's a duality here. Yes, by the nature of the distribution, GPL, and licensing general, Red Hat cannot stop or prevent a customer from distributing RHEL packages and software to third parties. However, Red Hat reserves the right to terminate any existing subscriptions a customer may have as a result of their package distributing. IIRC, the Enterprise Agreement makes it pretty clear the services and offerings provided by the subscription are for the customer and the customer only. Going outside of that violates the subscription's terms, not the softwares' licenses, therefore allowing Red Hat to end business with said customer.
For those concerned about the final year of CentOS 7: it will not be touched. It will continue to see source exports to git.centos.org as there is no parallel CentOS Stream 7 platform. Also, git.centos.org is not EOL either because it is used by other groups than Red Hat, like CentOS Special Interest Groups.
- Phrodo_00 3y ago> Red Hat cannot stop or prevent a customer from distributing RHEL packages and software to third parties. However, Red Hat reserves the right to terminate any existing subscriptions a customer may have as a result of their package distributing. IANAL, but not so sure about that. From GPLv3: > You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it. That sounds like a further restriction.
- 0x0000000 3y agoLinux is GPLv2, not Linux GPLv3. V2 does have a similar line in it: > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. But I expect we'd have to see litigation to determine how broadly that can be interpreted. Is applying a consequence as a result of an action the same as restricting that action?
- Phrodo_00 3y ago> Is applying a consequence as a result of an action the same as restricting that action? I mean, I don't disagree this needs to be tested in court if it hasn't, but what alternative ways of restriction do you think this is referring to? Do you expect it to only apply to the distributor physically restraining the licensee when attempting to redistribute it? Even the examples given in the license such as imposing fees are applying a consequence.
- pavon 3y agoYeah this is really pushing a gray area. Looking at it one way Red Hat is not obligated to do business with anyone, and if they stop doing business with a customer that customer still has all the rights granted to them by licenses of software they have already received, so in that sense Red Hat hasn't restricted the customer's rights in that software. However, on the other hand refusing to do business with someone in retaliation for exercising the rights granted by the licenses smells a lot like a restriction.
- vamega 3y agoI don't think it is a further restriction on the rights you have. Those rights extend to the code you have, they are only terminating the business relationship going forward. Not a lawyer, so maybe someone else more knowledgeable about the space will expand on this. I imagine that RH/IBM has had lawyers look into this before the policy was announced.
- Phrodo_00 3y agoRH hasn't said that they're looking into stopping customers from redistributing free software.