3 ms·

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 en

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.

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.