7 ms·

Nice example, but to be fair your analogy is flawed since there's no consideration on the GNU Public License, which is at the center of this conflict. Those fre

by adr1an 3y ago

Nice example, but to be fair your analogy is flawed since there's no consideration on the GNU Public License, which is at the center of this conflict. Those free food samples were part of the 'contract' Costco made with the food producers... ;)

pjmlp 3y ago
The licence is being followed to the letter.
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. The GPL does not allow any restriction on the redistribution of sources. Is retaliation in this manner a restriction? It is to a layman, lawyers are not in consensus. The Software Freedom Conservancy has warned Red Hat they believe this is not following the letter of the law, for example.
- Qem 3y ago
  There's some controversy on that: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis...
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    "Now, to be clear, the GPL agreements did not obligate Red Hat to make its CCS publicly available to everyone. This is a common misconception about GPL's requirements"
    - Qem 3y ago
      On further reading: "Due to this ongoing bad behavior by IBM's Red Hat, the situation has become increasingly complex and difficult to face. No third party can effectively monitor RHEL compliance with the GPL agreements, since customers live in fear of losing their much-needed service contracts. Red Hat's legal department has systematically refused SFC's requests in recent years to set up some form of monitoring by SFC. (For example, we asked to review the training materials and documents that RHEL salespeople are given to convince customers to buy RHEL, and Red Hat has not been willing to share these materials with us.) Nevertheless, since SFC serves as the global watchdog for GPL compliance, we welcome reports of RHEL-related violations." TL;DR: To be sure they were complying, marketing department is as important as the legal one, and they were fearful of people taking a good look there.

by adr1an 3y ago

pjmlp 3y ago

The licence is being followed to the letter.

sudosysgen 3y ago
Maybe, maybe not. The GPL does not allow any restriction on the redistribution of sources. Is retaliation in this manner a restriction? It is to a layman, lawyers are not in consensus. The Software Freedom Conservancy has warned Red Hat they believe this is not following the letter of the law, for example.
Qem 3y ago
There's some controversy on that: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis...
- pjmlp 3y ago
  "Now, to be clear, the GPL agreements did not obligate Red Hat to make its CCS publicly available to everyone. This is a common misconception about GPL's requirements"
  - Qem 3y ago
    On further reading: "Due to this ongoing bad behavior by IBM's Red Hat, the situation has become increasingly complex and difficult to face. No third party can effectively monitor RHEL compliance with the GPL agreements, since customers live in fear of losing their much-needed service contracts. Red Hat's legal department has systematically refused SFC's requests in recent years to set up some form of monitoring by SFC. (For example, we asked to review the training materials and documents that RHEL salespeople are given to convince customers to buy RHEL, and Red Hat has not been willing to share these materials with us.) Nevertheless, since SFC serves as the global watchdog for GPL compliance, we welcome reports of RHEL-related violations." TL;DR: To be sure they were complying, marketing department is as important as the legal one, and they were fearful of people taking a good look there.