3 ms·

The Software Freedom Conservancy legal analysis of RHEL and GPL that OP links to is the most interesting part to me. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/

The Software Freedom Conservancy legal analysis of RHEL and GPL that OP links to is the most interesting part to me. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis...

BeefySwain 3y ago
Some discussion yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36452101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36452101
cryptonector 3y ago
Wishy-washy language there about skirting lines doesn't make that a very good analysis. You can use others' GPL code in your products and charge money for it. You have to "publish" the GPL'ed sources (and any sources of yours that derive from GPL'ed code) on demand -- publish as in: if someone asks, you have to give it to them, but there's no requirement that there be a public download page or anything like that, and you can send the sources out in DVDs or flash drives or whatever media you like, and you can charge nominal amounts for the media. I.e., you don't have to make it easy to get the sources. And you don't have to provide the built product for free. You can do a lot within the boundaries of the GPL. If IBM/RH does that, so what? One can even do this sort of thing w/o GPL. For example, SQLite3 is in the public domain, yet the SQLite Consortium exists and makes what I imagine is good money for D. R. Hipp and his employees with zero competition from forks precisely because SQLite3 is very difficult to credibly fork, and SQLite3 is difficult to fork because the better test suite for it is proprietary and secret. To a business, open source is a tool. Even for individuals, open source is a tool. A young person just starting out and with few resources might make useful software open source so as to gain notoriety and better employment, or even to start a business.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  Yup. It goes from "These businesses are abusing the GPL and software freedom!" to "Well, they are following the GPL but that doesn't result in what I want!" This is why we have GPL 2 and 3, for example. Disclaimer: I work at Red Hat, but nowhere near RHEL.
  - jrochkind1 3y ago
    it's not just an issue of what "I" want, it's an issue of what the GPL is intended to do. If it doesn't result in the four freedoms, but the GPL allows it, then the GPL has failed to do what it was designed to do. From the text of the GPL itself: > Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things. RedHat is trying to sell software that is licensed under the GPL -- which has to be, because the base of it was written by others and the only reason RedHat is even allowed to use it or sell it is under the GPL -- and try to prevent users from having the freedom to re-distribute the GPL software they received, with or without their own modifications. They are trying to subvert the GPL. They know they are. That's why they have all this language where they say they aren't intending to limit your rights under the GPL -- it's just that they'll refuse to have you as a customer if you exersize them, that's all. Whether it is legal or not is a question for laywers. If it's legal, and it succesfully prevents users from redistributing GPL RedHat, then it's an accidental loophole, and has subverted the GPL's intent and design, as stated in the GPL itslef.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      > and try to prevent users from having the freedom to re-distribute the GPL software they received, with or without their own modifications. > refuse to have you as a customer if you exersize them, that's all. refuse to -continue- to have you as a customer, that is. you are still perfectly entitled to the source code of, and distribution thereof, what you purchased. The GPL doesn't create an obligation that you get continued access to future updates. I probably should leave the conversation at this point (not because I don't think there's merit in discussing it with you - just don't want to muddy the waters).
      - raShMan777 3y ago
        you've fallen for the arguments and ways of thinking of your employer which is not a good thing. > ... to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things. when i'm not allowed to be your customer anymore i don't have "the freedom to distribute copies". you're putting a limitation on me - that's not freedom. or specifically, regarding "that you receive source code or can get it if you want it": i can't get it if i want it when you're refusing me as a customer. or citing https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html: > If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer. > The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you. so: there is explicitly no limitation allowed on the receiving of the source code. Red Hat is putting a limitation on it. so for me it's clear that Red Hat is in violation of GPL, at least how the GPL was meant. maybe it's not legally waterproof because it's not formulated in a way that's withstanding a legal case against Red Hat but still: it's meant that way. and i hope and pray that in such a case the GPL (and every other license in use) is updated specifically against that (mis)use case so that Red Hat can't do such abominations.
- jrochkind1 3y ago
  The GPL does quite intentionally not require you to provide a public download page (or git access, etc), and this was more or less discussed and a conscious decision by those who came up with the GPL, agreed. Albeit in pre-widespread-internet days when a "public download page" wasn't a thing yet (and the equivalents were much more expensive, thus why they might not have wanted to require that burden). But still. I agree this is more or less intentional and explicit in the GPL. But that the GPL lets you take GPL software, add your own features on top, sell it, and tell customers that if they redistribute it themselves (as the GPL explicitly allows), you will refuse to sell them software in the future ever again? Nope nope nope. I think it's not entirely clear if the GPL allows that or not, but if it does, it seems pretty clear to me that it's inadvertant, and not what the GPL was intended to do. At any rate, this is a different thing, and to me another level of shadiness, than simply pointing out that the GPL does not require an entity to distribute the source via public download links -- this is about the entity trying to prohibit users from re-distributing the source themselves, and the GPL really was intentionally designed to try and avoid such prohibitions, that's kind of it's whole reason for existing.
  - cryptonector 3y ago
    > But that the GPL lets you take GPL software, add your own features on top, sell it, and tell customers that if they redistribute it themselves (as the GPL explicitly allows), you will refuse to sell them software in the future ever again? Nope nope nope. I think it's not entirely clear if the GPL allows that or not, but if it does, it seems pretty clear to me that it's inadvertant, and not what the GPL was intended to do. Does "Nope nope nope" answer the first question with "no", but then the "I think it's not entirely clear if the GPL allows that or not" answer it with "maybe"? Or was the "nope" think just a wish? I believe the GPL is silent on that. You might be right that this would be an inadvertent loophole, but as you know, it's not trivial to fix this sort of problem.
    - jrochkind1 3y ago
      Nope nope nope means this is a different quality of thing, the things you are trying to put in the same category are in different categories. the GPL, by it's own text explaining itself, is intended to ensure that users of GPL software always have the right to re-distribute it. It says that right in it. If your point is that IBM has enough lawyers and money to prevent users from redistributing GPL software, and they may have figured out how to exersize a loophole that will be difficult to do anything about it, especially cause of all those lawyers and money... right, indeed, sure. If you are suggesting that we should all consider this just fine, and you don't care what the GPL intended to do, and you don't think anyone else should either, and we should all aspire to make money by getting away with subverting the GPL... okay, thanks for sharing? But as for me: nope nope nope.

BeefySwain 3y ago

Some discussion yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36452101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36452101

cryptonector 3y ago

Wishy-washy language there about skirting lines doesn't make that a very good analysis. You can use others' GPL code in your products and charge money for it. You have to "publish" the GPL'ed sources (and any sources of yours that derive from GPL'ed code) on demand -- publish as in: if someone asks, you have to give it to them, but there's no requirement that there be a public download page or anything like that, and you can send the sources out in DVDs or flash drives or whatever media you like, and you can charge nominal amounts for the media. I.e., you don't have to make it easy to get the sources. And you don't have to provide the built product for free. You can do a lot within the boundaries of the GPL. If IBM/RH does that, so what? One can even do this sort of thing w/o GPL. For example, SQLite3 is in the public domain, yet the SQLite Consortium exists and makes what I imagine is good money for D. R. Hipp and his employees with zero competition from forks precisely because SQLite3 is very difficult to credibly fork, and SQLite3 is difficult to fork because the better test suite for it is proprietary and secret. To a business, open source is a tool. Even for individuals, open source is a tool. A young person just starting out and with few resources might make useful software open source so as to gain notoriety and better employment, or even to start a business.

FireBeyond 3y ago
Yup. It goes from "These businesses are abusing the GPL and software freedom!" to "Well, they are following the GPL but that doesn't result in what I want!" This is why we have GPL 2 and 3, for example. Disclaimer: I work at Red Hat, but nowhere near RHEL.
- jrochkind1 3y ago
  it's not just an issue of what "I" want, it's an issue of what the GPL is intended to do. If it doesn't result in the four freedoms, but the GPL allows it, then the GPL has failed to do what it was designed to do. From the text of the GPL itself: > Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things. RedHat is trying to sell software that is licensed under the GPL -- which has to be, because the base of it was written by others and the only reason RedHat is even allowed to use it or sell it is under the GPL -- and try to prevent users from having the freedom to re-distribute the GPL software they received, with or without their own modifications. They are trying to subvert the GPL. They know they are. That's why they have all this language where they say they aren't intending to limit your rights under the GPL -- it's just that they'll refuse to have you as a customer if you exersize them, that's all. Whether it is legal or not is a question for laywers. If it's legal, and it succesfully prevents users from redistributing GPL RedHat, then it's an accidental loophole, and has subverted the GPL's intent and design, as stated in the GPL itslef.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    > and try to prevent users from having the freedom to re-distribute the GPL software they received, with or without their own modifications. > refuse to have you as a customer if you exersize them, that's all. refuse to -continue- to have you as a customer, that is. you are still perfectly entitled to the source code of, and distribution thereof, what you purchased. The GPL doesn't create an obligation that you get continued access to future updates. I probably should leave the conversation at this point (not because I don't think there's merit in discussing it with you - just don't want to muddy the waters).
    - raShMan777 3y ago
      you've fallen for the arguments and ways of thinking of your employer which is not a good thing. > ... to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things. when i'm not allowed to be your customer anymore i don't have "the freedom to distribute copies". you're putting a limitation on me - that's not freedom. or specifically, regarding "that you receive source code or can get it if you want it": i can't get it if i want it when you're refusing me as a customer. or citing https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html: > If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer. > The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you. so: there is explicitly no limitation allowed on the receiving of the source code. Red Hat is putting a limitation on it. so for me it's clear that Red Hat is in violation of GPL, at least how the GPL was meant. maybe it's not legally waterproof because it's not formulated in a way that's withstanding a legal case against Red Hat but still: it's meant that way. and i hope and pray that in such a case the GPL (and every other license in use) is updated specifically against that (mis)use case so that Red Hat can't do such abominations.
jrochkind1 3y ago
The GPL does quite intentionally not require you to provide a public download page (or git access, etc), and this was more or less discussed and a conscious decision by those who came up with the GPL, agreed. Albeit in pre-widespread-internet days when a "public download page" wasn't a thing yet (and the equivalents were much more expensive, thus why they might not have wanted to require that burden). But still. I agree this is more or less intentional and explicit in the GPL. But that the GPL lets you take GPL software, add your own features on top, sell it, and tell customers that if they redistribute it themselves (as the GPL explicitly allows), you will refuse to sell them software in the future ever again? Nope nope nope. I think it's not entirely clear if the GPL allows that or not, but if it does, it seems pretty clear to me that it's inadvertant, and not what the GPL was intended to do. At any rate, this is a different thing, and to me another level of shadiness, than simply pointing out that the GPL does not require an entity to distribute the source via public download links -- this is about the entity trying to prohibit users from re-distributing the source themselves, and the GPL really was intentionally designed to try and avoid such prohibitions, that's kind of it's whole reason for existing.
- cryptonector 3y ago
  > But that the GPL lets you take GPL software, add your own features on top, sell it, and tell customers that if they redistribute it themselves (as the GPL explicitly allows), you will refuse to sell them software in the future ever again? Nope nope nope. I think it's not entirely clear if the GPL allows that or not, but if it does, it seems pretty clear to me that it's inadvertant, and not what the GPL was intended to do. Does "Nope nope nope" answer the first question with "no", but then the "I think it's not entirely clear if the GPL allows that or not" answer it with "maybe"? Or was the "nope" think just a wish? I believe the GPL is silent on that. You might be right that this would be an inadvertent loophole, but as you know, it's not trivial to fix this sort of problem.
  - jrochkind1 3y ago
    Nope nope nope means this is a different quality of thing, the things you are trying to put in the same category are in different categories. the GPL, by it's own text explaining itself, is intended to ensure that users of GPL software always have the right to re-distribute it. It says that right in it. If your point is that IBM has enough lawyers and money to prevent users from redistributing GPL software, and they may have figured out how to exersize a loophole that will be difficult to do anything about it, especially cause of all those lawyers and money... right, indeed, sure. If you are suggesting that we should all consider this just fine, and you don't care what the GPL intended to do, and you don't think anyone else should either, and we should all aspire to make money by getting away with subverting the GPL... okay, thanks for sharing? But as for me: nope nope nope.