3 ms·
The consensus here appears to be that red hat N is all GPL and released as source, but red hat N.1 is not a derived work of GPL code so it's fine if they keep i
by JonChesterfield 3y ago
The consensus here appears to be that red hat N is all GPL and released as source, but red hat N.1 is not a derived work of GPL code so it's fine if they keep it secret. That's a pretty thin ledge to stand on - if _red hat linux_ is not a derived work of masses of GPL code, what would be?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pabs3 3y agoNot quite, it is more like the GPL gives you the right to distribute/modify RHEL N, but not to N+1, unless you already have it. The RH subscription gives you RHEL N, and RHEL N+1 but only if you didn't distribute RHEL N.
- JonChesterfield 3y agoThe GPL covers derived work. Redhat N+1 is definitely a derived work of redhat N which is itself under GPL as it's definitely a derived work of all the GPL software they build it out of. If the line of reasoning you and others are proposing was sound, I could sell GCC with source code, then change a line of code and thereafter sell it as MyBestCompiler without ever distributing source code again.
- pabs3 3y agoSure, but if they don't give you binaries of N+1, they don't have to give you sources of N+1 and nothing in the GPL requires them to give you binaries of N+1.