4 ms·

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, wi

by 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.
      - ece 3y ago
        That seems like a terrible business idea to me, but hey, open source is more of a development model than a business model.
  - onlypositive 3y ago
    I'm not saying it does. I'm saying refusing to give me future versions if I share the first one is a restriction on the first one. That's a violation of the license.
    - unmole 3y ago
      The rights granted by GPL apply to the version I gave you. It doesn't obligate me to keep giving you new versions.
snovv_crash 3y ago
You're thinking about semantics, not intent. A judge would see through this argument instantly and come down hard on RedHat.
- unmole 3y ago
  What do you think is more likely? 1. An entity that that has been dealing with GPL software and the attendent licencing issues for decades fundamentally got it wrong. 2. Your understanding of the GPL is incorrect.
  - rincebrain 3y ago
    I think they're probably correct, actually. As written, yes, this is not a GPL violation, they're not directly stopping you from redistributing what you were given, they're just choosing to not do future business with you. In practice, judges often really hate people trying to do cute end runs around the intent of things, particularly anything that's more than a handshake, like a license. I would suspect they're betting heavily on nobody being big enough to be willing to try suing IBM-sized legal departments, and settling without losing the ability to argue this is valid if they're wrong.
  - snovv_crash 3y ago
    I think business heads are putting pressure and they're trying to walk in the grey space of what the GPL forbids clearly by intent but not by explicit language. Whether this ends up in court is another matter.
- ilc 3y ago
  No lawyer would let something like this happen if it was going to break the GPL. Breaking the GPL, and triggering the revocation of Red Hat's license to distribute various key pieces of GPL code is a massive no-go. I've also spent my share of time talking to lawyers about various parts of GPL compliance etc. I'm pretty confident Red Hat is in the right here. Do I like it: No. Do I think it is stupid: Yes.
  - 3y ago

by ilc 3y ago

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.
    - ece 3y ago
      That seems like a terrible business idea to me, but hey, open source is more of a development model than a business model.
- onlypositive 3y ago
  I'm not saying it does. I'm saying refusing to give me future versions if I share the first one is a restriction on the first one. That's a violation of the license.
  - unmole 3y ago
    The rights granted by GPL apply to the version I gave you. It doesn't obligate me to keep giving you new versions.

snovv_crash 3y ago

You're thinking about semantics, not intent. A judge would see through this argument instantly and come down hard on RedHat.

unmole 3y ago
What do you think is more likely? 1. An entity that that has been dealing with GPL software and the attendent licencing issues for decades fundamentally got it wrong. 2. Your understanding of the GPL is incorrect.
- rincebrain 3y ago
  I think they're probably correct, actually. As written, yes, this is not a GPL violation, they're not directly stopping you from redistributing what you were given, they're just choosing to not do future business with you. In practice, judges often really hate people trying to do cute end runs around the intent of things, particularly anything that's more than a handshake, like a license. I would suspect they're betting heavily on nobody being big enough to be willing to try suing IBM-sized legal departments, and settling without losing the ability to argue this is valid if they're wrong.
- snovv_crash 3y ago
  I think business heads are putting pressure and they're trying to walk in the grey space of what the GPL forbids clearly by intent but not by explicit language. Whether this ends up in court is another matter.
ilc 3y ago
No lawyer would let something like this happen if it was going to break the GPL. Breaking the GPL, and triggering the revocation of Red Hat's license to distribute various key pieces of GPL code is a massive no-go. I've also spent my share of time talking to lawyers about various parts of GPL compliance etc. I'm pretty confident Red Hat is in the right here. Do I like it: No. Do I think it is stupid: Yes.
- 3y ago