9 ms·

> Red Hat has decided to continue to use the Customer Portal to share source code with our partners and customers, while treating CentOS Stream as the venue for

> Red Hat has decided to continue to use the Customer Portal to share source code with our partners and customers, while treating CentOS Stream as the venue for collaboration with the community. > Unfortunately the way we understand it today, Red Hat’s user interface agreements indicate that re-publishing sources acquired through the customer portal would be a violation of those agreements. Pretty sure that's a gpl violation. > 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC1 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC1

doublepg23 3y ago
> any version Once they give you that version you can share it freely. That does not mean they can't stop giving you _new_ versions.
- onlypositive 3y ago
  That's a restriction on sharing... It's a more restrictive license. Doesn't matter what the restriction is. It's a restriction.
  - doublepg23 3y ago
    If a company gives you a binary of a GPL licensed program they _must_ give you a way to view the source. If they stop giving you the binary you are no longer entitled to the source.
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      Yup, IBM can stop distributing RHEL anytime, but they cannot continue to distribute it while preventing their users to share the source code with some GPL-violating TOS, which is what they claim to do.
      - unmole 3y ago
        > preventing their users to share the source They can't and they aren't proposing to do that. Rather they can stop doing business with such users.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        Except that threatening to unilateral breaking a contract explicitely violates the licence: > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. Whether or not this clause would be ruled valid in court is an open question, but the violation isn't. Unless you consider that “threatening customers to leave their business without the support they paid for” doesn't count as “imposing”, but that requires some mental gymnastic (what could this word even mean if not? Of course no company is going to use armed force to impose anything…)
        unmole 3y ago
        The GPL does not cover support contracts. No mental gymnastics needed.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        But this is intellectual gymnastics though, because the GPL cover the redistribution of the code, which is the topic here. If I commercialize GPL code and say in my TOS that you cannot redistribute the code <or something bad will happen>, then I'm adding a restriction to the code redistribution, and it doesn't matter what kind of “bad thing” it is, as the GPL says “any further restrictions”.
        unmole 3y ago
        TOS applies to the commercial service, not to GPL code. You can do whatever you want with the code within the bounds of the GPL. But the GPL doesn't magically obligate me to continue doing business with you. I can't sue you for re-distributing GPL code. But you can't make me provide you new versions of the software after you've breeched our agreement.
  - ilc 3y ago
    Honestly: It isn't. You can share what you were given. The vendor can decide NOT to share the next version with you. The GPL talks about your rights, etc, with regards to what you GET. Not guaranteeing any future updates, prices, etc. I'm sure that if you got caught, Red Hat would "forget" with enough money. :)
    - onlypositive 3y ago
      I see your point and I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm in the wrong here but to be honest this: > The vendor can decide NOT to share the next version with you [because you shared the previous verison]. Sounds a lot like a new restriction on sharing. The threat of future action if you share something under GPL is a restriction on sharing. If someone is prevented from sharing GPL code because of some kind of contract, license or TOS how is that not a new restriction being placed on the GPL?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - unmole 3y ago
        > Sounds a lot like a new restriction on sharing. The threat of future action if you share something under GPL is a restriction on sharing. It isn't. Giving you a boot disc doesn't obligate me to make future versions available to you.
        ece 3y ago
        If the boot disc has GPL code and you modify the code, the GPL applies. You would have to make your modifications available under the GPL when you distribute and allow others the same freedom you just used. It's the whole point of having the GPL. Red hat wants their fork to be different, I don't see why it should be.
        tmottabr 3y ago
        No, there is no new restriction.. GPL say what rights you have and what Red Hat can sue you for, not what Red Hat need to give you in the future. You have the right to change and share the sources and Red Hat cannot sue you for that if you choose to do it. GPL does not say anything about Red Hat giving you access or selling you new versions. An example, lets say you buy whatever 1.0 under GPL from Red Hat, and they make the sources available. GPL say that Red Hat cannot sue you for sharing the sources to whatever 1.0, but they will not sell you whatever 2.0 if you do so, and there is nothing in GPL require then to. The restriction is not on GPL, is in your business relation with Red Hat going forward, and that does not break GPL.
  - LeFantome 3y ago
    Red Hat is not restricting access to the code. You can still get that. They are restricting access to the RPM which is more than just code. The non-code bits are what is restricted.
  - somat 3y ago
    The only reason ibm(redhat) has to provide the source is because they provide the executable artifact the source generated. If ibm(redhat) decides to not provide you an exactable artifact(perhaps they say they don't want to sell you a rhel licence), they don't have to provide the source that generated that artifact. Its a stupid shitty way to behave but the gpl does not say you have to redistribute the source to every body(most people do because this is easier) only that you have to redistribute the source to people that get the binary.
- JonChesterfield 3y ago
  Sure, IBM can kill the red hat distribution. What they can't do is keep shipping new versions of it as closed source, where needing to be one of their customers to have the source is indistinguishable from closed to anyone who isn't their customer. This is "IBM openly violates GPL, waits to see if there are consequences". Not very like redhat as was. Sister thread seems to think that new versions of red hat aren't covered by the gpl, but I can't see how that conclusion is being reached.
  - unmole 3y ago
    > What they can't do is keep shipping new versions of it as closed source, They aren't proposing to do that. > This is "IBM openly violates GPL It isn't. GPL applies when you give someone a copy of the covered software. The GPL specifically allows selling copies of the software which would grant the recipient the same rights. But the GPL doesn't compel you to give someone a copy of the software to begin with.
    - JonChesterfield 3y ago
      The GPL covers derived work as well as the original. That's the whole point of it.
    - weebull 3y ago
      It's a violation because they placing a contractual restriction on redistribution of sources they've provided to you. GPL is a licensing agreement. Purchasing RHEL is a licensing agreement. Together they form a single, but incompatible licensing agreement, as the RHEL licensing term would violate the GPL licensing terms.
      - tmottabr 3y ago
        No they are not. You can share if you want and they can do nothing about it. But then can and will ban you as a Red Hat customer and thus you will not have access to future versions. GPL does not mandate they give you access to future versions.
tguvot 3y ago
don't forget that gpl applies to software itself. what is the license of rpm build specs that redhat provides ? all the pre/post install scripts and other magic that goes into creation of rpm package ? which is the real work that allows to build redhat compatible packages
- Proven 3y ago
  [dead]
rurban 3y ago
If you are not a user of RHEL, you don't necessarily get access to its source code. It was so far, but it's not a GPL violation if they stop doing so. Only users do have this right, not bystanders and competitors, eating the income of the service provider.
- _2z1p 3y ago
  To all of you saying this is a GPL violation, I highly doubt a company with the size and pedigree of Red Hat doesn’t have lawyers that thoroughly understand the GPL. I’m not a lawyer, but the way I read it, yes this is against the spirit but not the law. That being said, I feel like GPLv4 will be here any day now to close this loophole, like they did with the anti-Tivoization clause for v3.
  - gizmo686 3y ago
    Companies violate the law all of the time. The procedural hurdles of enforcing GPL are significant, to the point where blatent violations normally go unpunished. Assuming someone with standing decides to sue and ends up winning the lawsuit, the punishment is generally minor. Mostly the outcome is that the company must comply going forward. If you can get years of non-compliance in beforehand, and use that to reshape the market in your favor, why is the fact that a court might eventually tell you that you violated the license a problem?
    - lockhouse 3y ago
      Wouldn’t Oracle have standing if what Red Hat did was a license violation? Why would they risk that? There’s an old joke that Oracle is a company of lawyers with a small software engineering department.
      - gizmo686 3y ago
        Why would Oracle sue them? There is almost nothing for them to gain if they win, and a long and expensive court process regardless.
maxloh 3y ago
Sure, Red Hat may be obligated to distribute everything GPL/within kernel space. But how about patches for packages licensed in a more permissive license, like MIT?

doublepg23 3y ago

> any version Once they give you that version you can share it freely. That does not mean they can't stop giving you _new_ versions.

onlypositive 3y ago
That's a restriction on sharing... It's a more restrictive license. Doesn't matter what the restriction is. It's a restriction.
- doublepg23 3y ago
  If a company gives you a binary of a GPL licensed program they _must_ give you a way to view the source. If they stop giving you the binary you are no longer entitled to the source.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    Yup, IBM can stop distributing RHEL anytime, but they cannot continue to distribute it while preventing their users to share the source code with some GPL-violating TOS, which is what they claim to do.
    - unmole 3y ago
      > preventing their users to share the source They can't and they aren't proposing to do that. Rather they can stop doing business with such users.
      - littlestymaar 3y ago
        Except that threatening to unilateral breaking a contract explicitely violates the licence: > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. Whether or not this clause would be ruled valid in court is an open question, but the violation isn't. Unless you consider that “threatening customers to leave their business without the support they paid for” doesn't count as “imposing”, but that requires some mental gymnastic (what could this word even mean if not? Of course no company is going to use armed force to impose anything…)
        unmole 3y ago
        The GPL does not cover support contracts. No mental gymnastics needed.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        But this is intellectual gymnastics though, because the GPL cover the redistribution of the code, which is the topic here. If I commercialize GPL code and say in my TOS that you cannot redistribute the code <or something bad will happen>, then I'm adding a restriction to the code redistribution, and it doesn't matter what kind of “bad thing” it is, as the GPL says “any further restrictions”.
        unmole 3y ago
        TOS applies to the commercial service, not to GPL code. You can do whatever you want with the code within the bounds of the GPL. But the GPL doesn't magically obligate me to continue doing business with you. I can't sue you for re-distributing GPL code. But you can't make me provide you new versions of the software after you've breeched our agreement.
- ilc 3y ago
  Honestly: It isn't. You can share what you were given. The vendor can decide NOT to share the next version with you. The GPL talks about your rights, etc, with regards to what you GET. Not guaranteeing any future updates, prices, etc. I'm sure that if you got caught, Red Hat would "forget" with enough money. :)
  - onlypositive 3y ago
    I see your point and I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm in the wrong here but to be honest this: > The vendor can decide NOT to share the next version with you [because you shared the previous verison]. Sounds a lot like a new restriction on sharing. The threat of future action if you share something under GPL is a restriction on sharing. If someone is prevented from sharing GPL code because of some kind of contract, license or TOS how is that not a new restriction being placed on the GPL?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - unmole 3y ago
      > Sounds a lot like a new restriction on sharing. The threat of future action if you share something under GPL is a restriction on sharing. It isn't. Giving you a boot disc doesn't obligate me to make future versions available to you.
      - ece 3y ago
        If the boot disc has GPL code and you modify the code, the GPL applies. You would have to make your modifications available under the GPL when you distribute and allow others the same freedom you just used. It's the whole point of having the GPL. Red hat wants their fork to be different, I don't see why it should be.
        tmottabr 3y ago
        No, there is no new restriction.. GPL say what rights you have and what Red Hat can sue you for, not what Red Hat need to give you in the future. You have the right to change and share the sources and Red Hat cannot sue you for that if you choose to do it. GPL does not say anything about Red Hat giving you access or selling you new versions. An example, lets say you buy whatever 1.0 under GPL from Red Hat, and they make the sources available. GPL say that Red Hat cannot sue you for sharing the sources to whatever 1.0, but they will not sell you whatever 2.0 if you do so, and there is nothing in GPL require then to. The restriction is not on GPL, is in your business relation with Red Hat going forward, and that does not break GPL.
- LeFantome 3y ago
  Red Hat is not restricting access to the code. You can still get that. They are restricting access to the RPM which is more than just code. The non-code bits are what is restricted.
- somat 3y ago
  The only reason ibm(redhat) has to provide the source is because they provide the executable artifact the source generated. If ibm(redhat) decides to not provide you an exactable artifact(perhaps they say they don't want to sell you a rhel licence), they don't have to provide the source that generated that artifact. Its a stupid shitty way to behave but the gpl does not say you have to redistribute the source to every body(most people do because this is easier) only that you have to redistribute the source to people that get the binary.
JonChesterfield 3y ago
Sure, IBM can kill the red hat distribution. What they can't do is keep shipping new versions of it as closed source, where needing to be one of their customers to have the source is indistinguishable from closed to anyone who isn't their customer. This is "IBM openly violates GPL, waits to see if there are consequences". Not very like redhat as was. Sister thread seems to think that new versions of red hat aren't covered by the gpl, but I can't see how that conclusion is being reached.
- unmole 3y ago
  > What they can't do is keep shipping new versions of it as closed source, They aren't proposing to do that. > This is "IBM openly violates GPL It isn't. GPL applies when you give someone a copy of the covered software. The GPL specifically allows selling copies of the software which would grant the recipient the same rights. But the GPL doesn't compel you to give someone a copy of the software to begin with.
  - JonChesterfield 3y ago
    The GPL covers derived work as well as the original. That's the whole point of it.
  - weebull 3y ago
    It's a violation because they placing a contractual restriction on redistribution of sources they've provided to you. GPL is a licensing agreement. Purchasing RHEL is a licensing agreement. Together they form a single, but incompatible licensing agreement, as the RHEL licensing term would violate the GPL licensing terms.
    - tmottabr 3y ago
      No they are not. You can share if you want and they can do nothing about it. But then can and will ban you as a Red Hat customer and thus you will not have access to future versions. GPL does not mandate they give you access to future versions.

tguvot 3y ago

don't forget that gpl applies to software itself. what is the license of rpm build specs that redhat provides ? all the pre/post install scripts and other magic that goes into creation of rpm package ? which is the real work that allows to build redhat compatible packages

Proven 3y ago
[dead]

rurban 3y ago

If you are not a user of RHEL, you don't necessarily get access to its source code. It was so far, but it's not a GPL violation if they stop doing so. Only users do have this right, not bystanders and competitors, eating the income of the service provider.

_2z1p 3y ago
To all of you saying this is a GPL violation, I highly doubt a company with the size and pedigree of Red Hat doesn’t have lawyers that thoroughly understand the GPL. I’m not a lawyer, but the way I read it, yes this is against the spirit but not the law. That being said, I feel like GPLv4 will be here any day now to close this loophole, like they did with the anti-Tivoization clause for v3.
- gizmo686 3y ago
  Companies violate the law all of the time. The procedural hurdles of enforcing GPL are significant, to the point where blatent violations normally go unpunished. Assuming someone with standing decides to sue and ends up winning the lawsuit, the punishment is generally minor. Mostly the outcome is that the company must comply going forward. If you can get years of non-compliance in beforehand, and use that to reshape the market in your favor, why is the fact that a court might eventually tell you that you violated the license a problem?
  - lockhouse 3y ago
    Wouldn’t Oracle have standing if what Red Hat did was a license violation? Why would they risk that? There’s an old joke that Oracle is a company of lawyers with a small software engineering department.
    - gizmo686 3y ago
      Why would Oracle sue them? There is almost nothing for them to gain if they win, and a long and expensive court process regardless.

maxloh 3y ago

Sure, Red Hat may be obligated to distribute everything GPL/within kernel space. But how about patches for packages licensed in a more permissive license, like MIT?