4 ms·

> Besides, FSF/GNU never said that you can't charge money for FOSS or that the source code must be published for anyone in some git repository. The issue is, I

> Besides, FSF/GNU never said that you can't charge money for FOSS or that the source code must be published for anyone in some git repository. The issue is, IMO, that they are saying they are terminating access to those publishing those sources. I don’t know if that goes against the letter of the GPL (IANAL), but I’d say it certainly goes against the spirit, they are denying their users a freedom to publish those sources, in a way.

sanxiyn 3y ago
No, I don't think it is against GPL, certainly not the letter, and not even the spirit. GPL gives you source. GPL does not give you stream of updates.
- Semaphor 3y ago
  > GPL does not give you stream of updates. What? GPL gives you the source if you receive the compiled form. When the source changes, you get those as well if you receive the compiled form. Edited in if you receive the compiled form twice for clarity.
  - thedriver 3y ago
    >When the source changes, you get those as well. No, it does not say this. It says that if someone gets a piece of software, a binary for example, they must be given the source code it was built upon on request. It does not say that they have to receive all future source code updates even if they don't get future versions of the software.
    - Semaphor 3y ago
      Yes, that is my point. They terminate your subscription (stopping you from receiving "the binary"), for re-publishing the source code which you are allowed to re-publish, but they don’t want you to.
      - sanxiyn 3y ago
        Terminating the subscription and preventing you from receiving the binary is Red Hat's prerogative. GPL does not say why Red Hat should not do so, and philosophically, it also does not contradict any software freedom.
        Semaphor 3y ago
        Of course it is, legally. But they are threatening termination specifically to prevent people from exercising their freedom. How that can’t be seen as violating the spirit, I don’t know.
        sanxiyn 3y ago
        People are not prevented from exercising their freedom.
        Semaphor 3y ago
        Sure, not legally. Just de-facto. Or to use some reductio ad absurdum, you can exercise all your freedoms, but you will be killed for it, is not very free, is it?
        tpush 3y ago
        That comparison doesn't work in exactly the way that illustrates Red Hat's compliance with the GPL. Yes, if the consequence of excercising freedom is death(or imprisonment) then you aren't actually free, because killing (or imprisonment) stops you from excercising freedom. Red Hat terminating your license does not stop you from excercising the freedom the GPL gives you.
        Semaphor 3y ago
        Okay, I can see that argument. So let me rephrase: "You can exercise freedom 4, but only if you never use any updated version of this software again", would you say that leaves you just as free as normal GPL software does? A licence like that would not even be GPL compatible, but Red Hat is essentially prescribing just that in a roundabout way.
  - sanxiyn 3y ago
    No, 100% not. When you change the source, you are not obligated to give the change to anyone else.
    - Semaphor 3y ago
      GPL gives you the source if you receive the compiled form. When the source changes, you get those as well if you receive the compiled form. I thought this was clear, but as 2 misunderstood me already, I guess not.
  - tm-guimaraes 3y ago
    No. GPL means I can’t distribute GPL software or its derivatives without its source. It doesn’t mean i have to distribute it to you for ever. So if I don’t distribute the software to you, I don’t need to give you updates. Just like if I download some gpl code and change it locally, as long as I don’t distribute any part of it, i also don’t have to publish its sources. Now the issue is not that, the issue is the spirit. GPL meantions “no further restrictions”, so is “exercising your GPL rights terminates your contract” a restriction? Technically you can still do what ever you want with that software , without any law suite etc, but I wouldn’t consider it free if there’s grave, even if non legal, consequences from doing so. Edit : written before parent clarified his comment :)
    - Semaphor 3y ago
      > It doesn’t mean i have to distribute it to you for ever. I edited my comment as it’s apparently misunderstood by everyone. Your final paragraph was exactly what I meant with going against the spirit of the GPL.
      - sanxiyn 3y ago
        Which spirit? The spirit of the GPL is four essential freedoms. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html You should be able to cite the number between 1 and 4.
        Semaphor 3y ago
        Sure. 4
        sanxiyn 3y ago
        How is it against freedom 4? You can distribute modified versions to the end of the world. You just don't get access to future modifications made by Red Hat. You are not entitled, neither legally nor morally, to Red Hat's future modifications.
arghwhat 3y ago
The source code requirements of licenses like GPL is fulfilled if a person who receives a component can request e.g. a tarball of the source used to build the version of the component they had received, in such a state that you can reproduce the component. Only those whom the component was distributed to can make this demand (although GPL lets this individual distribute the source afterwards), and only for that specific source revision.
- Semaphor 3y ago
  Yes, I said nothing else.
  - arghwhat 3y ago
    Well, you implied differently and said it was not in the spirit of GPL. The spirit of GPL is just compliance. It predates all modern source code distribution and collaboration systems and processes - a floppy disk sent by snail mail in response to a letter is likely the original intent.
    - geerlingguy 3y ago
      The spirit of GPL is the free software movement. Not raw compliance. People who choose to attach GPL licenses to their code are certainly not lawyers and bureaucrats; they intend for a certain level of sharing to occur, else they'd have chosen BSD or MIT license.
      - throwaway_9034 3y ago
        So you think Red Hat's engineering efforts mean nothing because their product is licensed under many open source licenses? That seems unfair when Rocky/CIQ explicitly uses Red Hat's 10-year support as an advertisement point and contribute nothing to that fair? https://ciq.com/support/rocky-linux/ https://ciq.com/support/rocky-linux/ With regular updates and a 10-year committed support lifecycle for each major release, Rocky Linux is ideal for use in enterprise environments. It is easy to migrate from CentOS and other RHEL-derived Linux distributions, and it is secure and scalable. Looking at this, what is the cost for CIQ here? What is the cost for Red Hat?

sanxiyn 3y ago

No, I don't think it is against GPL, certainly not the letter, and not even the spirit. GPL gives you source. GPL does not give you stream of updates.

Semaphor 3y ago
> GPL does not give you stream of updates. What? GPL gives you the source if you receive the compiled form. When the source changes, you get those as well if you receive the compiled form. Edited in if you receive the compiled form twice for clarity.
- thedriver 3y ago
  >When the source changes, you get those as well. No, it does not say this. It says that if someone gets a piece of software, a binary for example, they must be given the source code it was built upon on request. It does not say that they have to receive all future source code updates even if they don't get future versions of the software.
  - Semaphor 3y ago
    Yes, that is my point. They terminate your subscription (stopping you from receiving "the binary"), for re-publishing the source code which you are allowed to re-publish, but they don’t want you to.
    - sanxiyn 3y ago
      Terminating the subscription and preventing you from receiving the binary is Red Hat's prerogative. GPL does not say why Red Hat should not do so, and philosophically, it also does not contradict any software freedom.
      - Semaphor 3y ago
        Of course it is, legally. But they are threatening termination specifically to prevent people from exercising their freedom. How that can’t be seen as violating the spirit, I don’t know.
        sanxiyn 3y ago
        People are not prevented from exercising their freedom.
        Semaphor 3y ago
        Sure, not legally. Just de-facto. Or to use some reductio ad absurdum, you can exercise all your freedoms, but you will be killed for it, is not very free, is it?
        tpush 3y ago
        That comparison doesn't work in exactly the way that illustrates Red Hat's compliance with the GPL. Yes, if the consequence of excercising freedom is death(or imprisonment) then you aren't actually free, because killing (or imprisonment) stops you from excercising freedom. Red Hat terminating your license does not stop you from excercising the freedom the GPL gives you.
        Semaphor 3y ago
        Okay, I can see that argument. So let me rephrase: "You can exercise freedom 4, but only if you never use any updated version of this software again", would you say that leaves you just as free as normal GPL software does? A licence like that would not even be GPL compatible, but Red Hat is essentially prescribing just that in a roundabout way.
- sanxiyn 3y ago
  No, 100% not. When you change the source, you are not obligated to give the change to anyone else.
  - Semaphor 3y ago
    GPL gives you the source if you receive the compiled form. When the source changes, you get those as well if you receive the compiled form. I thought this was clear, but as 2 misunderstood me already, I guess not.
- tm-guimaraes 3y ago
  No. GPL means I can’t distribute GPL software or its derivatives without its source. It doesn’t mean i have to distribute it to you for ever. So if I don’t distribute the software to you, I don’t need to give you updates. Just like if I download some gpl code and change it locally, as long as I don’t distribute any part of it, i also don’t have to publish its sources. Now the issue is not that, the issue is the spirit. GPL meantions “no further restrictions”, so is “exercising your GPL rights terminates your contract” a restriction? Technically you can still do what ever you want with that software , without any law suite etc, but I wouldn’t consider it free if there’s grave, even if non legal, consequences from doing so. Edit : written before parent clarified his comment :)
  - Semaphor 3y ago
    > It doesn’t mean i have to distribute it to you for ever. I edited my comment as it’s apparently misunderstood by everyone. Your final paragraph was exactly what I meant with going against the spirit of the GPL.
    - sanxiyn 3y ago
      Which spirit? The spirit of the GPL is four essential freedoms. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html You should be able to cite the number between 1 and 4.
      - Semaphor 3y ago
        Sure. 4
        sanxiyn 3y ago
        How is it against freedom 4? You can distribute modified versions to the end of the world. You just don't get access to future modifications made by Red Hat. You are not entitled, neither legally nor morally, to Red Hat's future modifications.

arghwhat 3y ago

The source code requirements of licenses like GPL is fulfilled if a person who receives a component can request e.g. a tarball of the source used to build the version of the component they had received, in such a state that you can reproduce the component. Only those whom the component was distributed to can make this demand (although GPL lets this individual distribute the source afterwards), and only for that specific source revision.

Semaphor 3y ago
Yes, I said nothing else.
- arghwhat 3y ago
  Well, you implied differently and said it was not in the spirit of GPL. The spirit of GPL is just compliance. It predates all modern source code distribution and collaboration systems and processes - a floppy disk sent by snail mail in response to a letter is likely the original intent.
  - geerlingguy 3y ago
    The spirit of GPL is the free software movement. Not raw compliance. People who choose to attach GPL licenses to their code are certainly not lawyers and bureaucrats; they intend for a certain level of sharing to occur, else they'd have chosen BSD or MIT license.
    - throwaway_9034 3y ago
      So you think Red Hat's engineering efforts mean nothing because their product is licensed under many open source licenses? That seems unfair when Rocky/CIQ explicitly uses Red Hat's 10-year support as an advertisement point and contribute nothing to that fair? https://ciq.com/support/rocky-linux/ https://ciq.com/support/rocky-linux/ With regular updates and a 10-year committed support lifecycle for each major release, Rocky Linux is ideal for use in enterprise environments. It is easy to migrate from CentOS and other RHEL-derived Linux distributions, and it is secure and scalable. Looking at this, what is the cost for CIQ here? What is the cost for Red Hat?