4 ms·

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.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        > TOS applies to the commercial service, not to GPL code. Come on, the TOS almost litterally say “you shall not re-distribute the code or we terminate you” and now you're arguing that the TOS isn't about GPL code? This is Olympic level gymnastic at play here.
        unmole 3y ago
        They are terminated the additional services they would have otherwise provided you. They can't terminate the GPL. If you find this difficult to understand maybe ask a lawyer.
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.

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.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        > TOS applies to the commercial service, not to GPL code. Come on, the TOS almost litterally say “you shall not re-distribute the code or we terminate you” and now you're arguing that the TOS isn't about GPL code? This is Olympic level gymnastic at play here.
        unmole 3y ago
        They are terminated the additional services they would have otherwise provided you. They can't terminate the GPL. If you find this difficult to understand maybe ask a lawyer.

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.