3 ms·

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

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.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    > you've fallen for the arguments and ways of thinking of your employer which is not a good thing. I recognized that as a risk, hence the disengagement, for sure. I also know that not just in matters like this, I am overly prone to analyzing and lawyering things, perhaps to too great a degree. > 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. I will say I absolutely get this perspective here and how it applies to the "spirit" of the GPL, and the way you phrase it is good in recognizing things as disparate but also intrinsically intertwined. I will also say (on a personal level, I of course don't speak for RH) I think any such things should be addressed at the root, i.e. in the GPL.
    - cryptonector 3y ago
      > I will also say (on a personal level, I of course don't speak for RH) I think any such things should be addressed at the root, i.e. in the GPL. Yes, but there's no time machines allowing time travel into the past.
  - cryptonector 3y ago
    > 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. So this is very interesting. Say I want a copy of source code for X and you tell me you have it, but you're not an authoritative source of source code for X: how can I trust your copy, if I choose to get it from you? Redistribution of sources is a nice right to have, but most people prefer to get them from authoritative sources as long as they're available. As long as IBM makes these sources available for a nominal fee, they're within the GPL, and people who want them should just go through that process. > so: there is explicitly no limitation allowed on the receiving of the source code. Red Hat is putting a limitation on it. IBM can't legally not provide a copy of the sources for a nominal fee. And they can't limit what you do with them as far as licensing goes, but it may well be that legally speaking they can terminate rights not under the GPL. Maybe this is just a loophole in the GPL. Maybe the courts will accept it, maybe not.

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.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > you've fallen for the arguments and ways of thinking of your employer which is not a good thing. I recognized that as a risk, hence the disengagement, for sure. I also know that not just in matters like this, I am overly prone to analyzing and lawyering things, perhaps to too great a degree. > 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. I will say I absolutely get this perspective here and how it applies to the "spirit" of the GPL, and the way you phrase it is good in recognizing things as disparate but also intrinsically intertwined. I will also say (on a personal level, I of course don't speak for RH) I think any such things should be addressed at the root, i.e. in the GPL.
  - cryptonector 3y ago
    > I will also say (on a personal level, I of course don't speak for RH) I think any such things should be addressed at the root, i.e. in the GPL. Yes, but there's no time machines allowing time travel into the past.
- cryptonector 3y ago
  > 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. So this is very interesting. Say I want a copy of source code for X and you tell me you have it, but you're not an authoritative source of source code for X: how can I trust your copy, if I choose to get it from you? Redistribution of sources is a nice right to have, but most people prefer to get them from authoritative sources as long as they're available. As long as IBM makes these sources available for a nominal fee, they're within the GPL, and people who want them should just go through that process. > so: there is explicitly no limitation allowed on the receiving of the source code. Red Hat is putting a limitation on it. IBM can't legally not provide a copy of the sources for a nominal fee. And they can't limit what you do with them as far as licensing goes, but it may well be that legally speaking they can terminate rights not under the GPL. Maybe this is just a loophole in the GPL. Maybe the courts will accept it, maybe not.