4 ms·

> RHEL clearly does not care about the GPL You're obviously confused as to the terms of the license. Red Hat seems to be fully compliant.

by nsajko 3y ago

geerlingguy 3y ago
s/fully/minimally (where they used to be even more compliant than the spirit of the license).
- fredski42 3y ago
  Can you eloborate on the minimally vs fully. In my book you are either compliant or you are not. Or is this a case of spirit vs letter? If so, I would love to know the spirit part.
  - sudosysgen 3y ago
    This is a case of 100% violating the spirit, and perhaps also violating the letter. The GPL requires that the distributor place no restriction on redistribution of the sources or binaries by their clients. The subscription agreement, however, is terminated if you exercise this right, despite Red Hat not being allowed to restrict the exercise of this right. This is on the very edge of legality and may be found illegal - they're shifting the consequence somewhere else to say that it's not redistribution that's restricted, but that if you redistribute then they restrict everything else.
    - justsomehnguy 3y ago
      > The subscription agreement, however, is terminated if you exercise this right, despite Red Hat not being allowed to restrict the exercise of this right. This one. Though they can add any restrictions (like asking money for the sources, which GPL is fine with).
      - sudosysgen 3y ago
        No, you cannot add any restriction to asking for sources nor to redistribution. You can only ask in exchange for sources for the cost of physically distributing the source, nothing more, and in that case you must offer it to anyone asking at all, even if they do not have the binary. Otherwise, you have to distribute it for free on the same medium as the binary itself. You can not either add any restriction to the act of distributing the program or it's sources. The GPLv2 says for example "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.". The question is whether or not terminating the subscription is a restriction, which it totally is to any reasonable reading by a layperson, and may be as well in front of a judge.
        mistrial9 3y ago
        viscerally I would like to support what you say, but it makes little sense with a broader interpretation of "costs" .. IANAL but there might be some "reasonable" added there, and markets work with some bit of extra in places. It seems like a market negotiation is OK. The value of the code has to exist in really different economies.. London to Algiers so to speak. So there has to be some room for different kinds of deals IMHO
    - mustache_kimono 3y ago
      > The GPL requires that the distributor place no restriction on redistribution of the sources or binaries by their clients. ... The subscription agreement, however, is terminated if you exercise this right, despite Red Hat not being allowed to restrict the exercise of this right. Again -- you've said this elsewhere -- which source and which binaries? RH places no restrictions on the redistribution of source or binaries received pursuant to Section 3 of the GPL. RH simply terminates the business relationship if you decide to build a 1:1 clone. What you're reading into the GPL is a duty not to terminate a business relationship, and to deliver new and distinct sources and binaries, after the business relationship is terminated.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
goolz 3y ago
That quote, at no point, says they violated. Simply, that they don’t care. Which they do not. They care about money. It amazes me how many people want to split hairs for a billion dollar corporation. You can be compliant and still be morally bankrupt and not care about the GPL. Not mutually exclusive. And important note: “which guarantees that users are free to use, share, and modify the software without paying anyone for it.” All that said, I will just admit that I am upset with RHEL and need to do some more research into the GPL.

> RHEL clearly does not care about the GPL You're obviously confused as to the terms of the license. Red Hat seems to be fully compliant.

by nsajko 3y ago

> RHEL clearly does not care about the GPL You're obviously confused as to the terms of the license. Red Hat seems to be fully compliant.

geerlingguy 3y ago

s/fully/minimally (where they used to be even more compliant than the spirit of the license).

fredski42 3y ago
Can you eloborate on the minimally vs fully. In my book you are either compliant or you are not. Or is this a case of spirit vs letter? If so, I would love to know the spirit part.
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  This is a case of 100% violating the spirit, and perhaps also violating the letter. The GPL requires that the distributor place no restriction on redistribution of the sources or binaries by their clients. The subscription agreement, however, is terminated if you exercise this right, despite Red Hat not being allowed to restrict the exercise of this right. This is on the very edge of legality and may be found illegal - they're shifting the consequence somewhere else to say that it's not redistribution that's restricted, but that if you redistribute then they restrict everything else.
  - justsomehnguy 3y ago
    > The subscription agreement, however, is terminated if you exercise this right, despite Red Hat not being allowed to restrict the exercise of this right. This one. Though they can add any restrictions (like asking money for the sources, which GPL is fine with).
    - sudosysgen 3y ago
      No, you cannot add any restriction to asking for sources nor to redistribution. You can only ask in exchange for sources for the cost of physically distributing the source, nothing more, and in that case you must offer it to anyone asking at all, even if they do not have the binary. Otherwise, you have to distribute it for free on the same medium as the binary itself. You can not either add any restriction to the act of distributing the program or it's sources. The GPLv2 says for example "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.". The question is whether or not terminating the subscription is a restriction, which it totally is to any reasonable reading by a layperson, and may be as well in front of a judge.
      - mistrial9 3y ago
        viscerally I would like to support what you say, but it makes little sense with a broader interpretation of "costs" .. IANAL but there might be some "reasonable" added there, and markets work with some bit of extra in places. It seems like a market negotiation is OK. The value of the code has to exist in really different economies.. London to Algiers so to speak. So there has to be some room for different kinds of deals IMHO
  - mustache_kimono 3y ago
    > The GPL requires that the distributor place no restriction on redistribution of the sources or binaries by their clients. ... The subscription agreement, however, is terminated if you exercise this right, despite Red Hat not being allowed to restrict the exercise of this right. Again -- you've said this elsewhere -- which source and which binaries? RH places no restrictions on the redistribution of source or binaries received pursuant to Section 3 of the GPL. RH simply terminates the business relationship if you decide to build a 1:1 clone. What you're reading into the GPL is a duty not to terminate a business relationship, and to deliver new and distinct sources and binaries, after the business relationship is terminated.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

goolz 3y ago

That quote, at no point, says they violated. Simply, that they don’t care. Which they do not. They care about money. It amazes me how many people want to split hairs for a billion dollar corporation. You can be compliant and still be morally bankrupt and not care about the GPL. Not mutually exclusive. And important note: “which guarantees that users are free to use, share, and modify the software without paying anyone for it.” All that said, I will just admit that I am upset with RHEL and need to do some more research into the GPL.