3 ms·

RedHat basically said: if you redistribute our code, we’re not going to be your friend anymore. And only our friends can get our latest code. There is no claus

by jmole 3y ago

RedHat basically said: if you redistribute our code, we’re not going to be your friend anymore. And only our friends can get our latest code. There is no clause in the GPL that says, “if you get one version of the software, you have the right to all future versions”

geerlingguy 3y ago
The concern is mostly a moral one, not a legal one. The idea that someone can take GPLv2-licensed code, build a platform/product on top of it, then coerce people to not share the source code after becoming a customer through a threat of ending their business relationship... that's what people take issue with. I do too, though as I said in the OP, I agree it seems they're in the clear, legally-speaking.
- gary_0 3y ago
  We got the GPLv3 to close the TiVo loophole, I wonder if we'll get the GPLv4 to close the Red Hat loophole.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    Don't forget AGPL to close the SaaS loophole. FWIW it's arguable whether GPL3 was even needed to close the Tivo loophole, since GPL2 includes "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable". It's unfortunate that none of the major kernel copyright holders are willing to litigate This whole GPL with contractual restrictions was tried before by Sveasoft (WRT54G firmware). They ended up failing and becoming a footnote in history, but Redhat is obviously much larger and more significant to the overall ecosystem.
  - olliej 3y ago
    what would that be? "If you ever release something under GPLv4 you must continue publishing updates for all time, and you must provide free build support for all other people/organisations who have ever used, shipped, or repackaged it"? As far as I can make out all RH has done is said "we're no longer spending our own money to support downstream projects and forks of our products", and everyone seems to be saying that they should not be allowed to do that. Which seems to be a very clear statement that RedHat should be required to spend time and money writing code to support other projects, whether or not those projects contribute anything, or are well funded.
    - geerlingguy 3y ago
      I think "you may not put any restrictions on sharing the code for any user who receives the source code, including but not limited to threatening account termination solely for the exercise of the rights granted by this license."
lowbloodsugar 3y ago
IANAL, but it seems pretty clear to me that if I say "If you exercise your rights in this license then we will do X, where X is impactful to your business", then that is clearly a modification of the license. This bit seems pretty clear cut: >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. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. I can only assume that RedHat is saying "This part of the system we wrote entirely ourselves, and so while you are bound by the GPL we are not"?

by jmole 3y ago

geerlingguy 3y ago

The concern is mostly a moral one, not a legal one. The idea that someone can take GPLv2-licensed code, build a platform/product on top of it, then coerce people to not share the source code after becoming a customer through a threat of ending their business relationship... that's what people take issue with. I do too, though as I said in the OP, I agree it seems they're in the clear, legally-speaking.

gary_0 3y ago
We got the GPLv3 to close the TiVo loophole, I wonder if we'll get the GPLv4 to close the Red Hat loophole.
- mindslight 3y ago
  Don't forget AGPL to close the SaaS loophole. FWIW it's arguable whether GPL3 was even needed to close the Tivo loophole, since GPL2 includes "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable". It's unfortunate that none of the major kernel copyright holders are willing to litigate This whole GPL with contractual restrictions was tried before by Sveasoft (WRT54G firmware). They ended up failing and becoming a footnote in history, but Redhat is obviously much larger and more significant to the overall ecosystem.
- olliej 3y ago
  what would that be? "If you ever release something under GPLv4 you must continue publishing updates for all time, and you must provide free build support for all other people/organisations who have ever used, shipped, or repackaged it"? As far as I can make out all RH has done is said "we're no longer spending our own money to support downstream projects and forks of our products", and everyone seems to be saying that they should not be allowed to do that. Which seems to be a very clear statement that RedHat should be required to spend time and money writing code to support other projects, whether or not those projects contribute anything, or are well funded.
  - geerlingguy 3y ago
    I think "you may not put any restrictions on sharing the code for any user who receives the source code, including but not limited to threatening account termination solely for the exercise of the rights granted by this license."

lowbloodsugar 3y ago

IANAL, but it seems pretty clear to me that if I say "If you exercise your rights in this license then we will do X, where X is impactful to your business", then that is clearly a modification of the license. This bit seems pretty clear cut: >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. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. I can only assume that RedHat is saying "This part of the system we wrote entirely ourselves, and so while you are bound by the GPL we are not"?