4 ms·
You're thinking about semantics, not intent. A judge would see through this argument instantly and come down hard on RedHat.
by 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 agoWhat 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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoNo 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.
- snovv_crash 3y agoFrom what I understand here, RedHat will terminate the contract to future code if you actually exercise your rights to the GPL code that the GPL grants you. This is effectively adding new restrictions to end users of the code which the GPL expressly prohibits. Now, just because it isn't part of the same contract (since they haven't added some clauses to the GPL), doesn't mean it isn't part of the same distribution agreement, since it is part and parcel of the same distribution. If the US government said "yes you have the right to free speech, but if you exercise it, then afterwards we will strip you of citizenship and deport you to Mexico" that would be considered infringement on the free speech statutes. Retaliation for invocation of the agreed upon licence terms effectively nullifies those terms, and should (IMO, IANAL) revoke RH's licence.
- mbreese 3y agoThat's not the way contracts work... the wording very much matters. RH might have a semantic argument, but it's a very defensible semantic argument.