3 ms·

>You are allowed to charge a nominal fee for the distribution of source code. You added the word "nominal" but the GPL offers no guidance for how large the fee

>You are allowed to charge a nominal fee for the distribution of source code. You added the word "nominal" but the GPL offers no guidance for how large the fee can be. RedHat appears to be breaking norms here but probably not breaking the license. GPLv2: You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. GPLv3: You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee. > GPL does not allow for gating the source code. Full stop. RedHat is getting around this by saying "If you ask for it, we'll give you the source code for a high fee. If the source code we give you gets released to others, that's totally fine! We'll just immediately terminate all business dealings with you forever, if it does." GPLv3 has some language that very arguably might prevent this, but CentOS is licensed under GPLv2 and no one has found a clause which makes this behavior obviously improper, yet.

743cnq2fmgauzzw 3y ago
[flagged]
743cnq2fmgauzzw 3y ago
[flagged]
tremon 3y ago
From GPLv2, section 6: > Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. How does "we'll just immediately terminate all business dealings with you forever" not sound like a retaliatory restriction on the recipients' exercise of their rights?
- reaperman 3y ago
  It doesn’t impose a legal restriction on their right to do those things. It reserves the right to refuse service for Red Hat. Hopefully a lawyer can successfully argue your point of view and win in court but I don’t personally see it myself.
- ElectricalUnion 3y ago
  > How does "we'll just immediately terminate all business dealings with you forever" not sound like a retaliatory restriction on the recipients' exercise of their rights? A enterprise has the right to refuse customers if the reason isn't discrimination of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or nationality. "I violated a contract I made with them" isn't one of those.

743cnq2fmgauzzw 3y ago

[flagged]

743cnq2fmgauzzw 3y ago

[flagged]

tremon 3y ago

From GPLv2, section 6: > Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. How does "we'll just immediately terminate all business dealings with you forever" not sound like a retaliatory restriction on the recipients' exercise of their rights?

reaperman 3y ago
It doesn’t impose a legal restriction on their right to do those things. It reserves the right to refuse service for Red Hat. Hopefully a lawyer can successfully argue your point of view and win in court but I don’t personally see it myself.
ElectricalUnion 3y ago
> How does "we'll just immediately terminate all business dealings with you forever" not sound like a retaliatory restriction on the recipients' exercise of their rights? A enterprise has the right to refuse customers if the reason isn't discrimination of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or nationality. "I violated a contract I made with them" isn't one of those.