3 ms·
>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
by 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 agoYes, 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 agoTerminating 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 agoOf 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 agoPeople are not prevented from exercising their freedom.
- Semaphor 3y agoSure, 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 agoThat 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 agoOkay, 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.
- tpush 3y agoI don't see how that is equivalent to what Red Hat is doing. They never restrict your freedom 4 with their EULA. Only availability of future binaries. All already received binaries have their licenses intact and unrestricted, even if you break the EULA.
- Semaphor 3y agoTo clarify, you think a license saying "You can exercise freedom 4, but only if you never use any updated version of this software again" is just as free and GPL compatible?