4 ms·

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 philosoph

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.
        tpush 3y ago
        I 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 ago
        To 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?
        tpush 3y ago
        No, I'm saying your formulation doesn't match Red Hat's EULA.
        Semaphor 3y ago
        How? You just said it does. Assume I’m dumb and explain to me the difference, please.
        tpush 3y ago
        No, I didn't. I'm not sure where you get that from? Anyway, Red Hat's EULA doesn't restrict freedom 4. You asserted an alternative formulation where it does infringe to be equivalent. I reject that equivalence assertion. Does that make it clear?
        Semaphor 3y ago
        What I don’t get is the difference between > 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. And > You can exercise freedom 4, but only if you never use any updated version of this software again To me those seem 100% equivalent in what they do, I’m asking you to explain the difference which is obvious to you, but not to me. I never say already received binaries have their licence violated. I actually never ever said the licence is violated at all, that was in my premise before the IANAL part.
      - shaan7 3y ago
        Well, if you take it so far as death, I can even argue that even death does not stop you from exercising your freedom. You just don't deserve to live if you dare to redistribute my software in a way I don't like. The problem is defining what a "restriction" is. As an example, The Government of India pulled the same tactic as Red Hat in this case. Enrolling in India's biometric Aadhar program is "voluntary", but it is mandatory to do a lot of basic things - like filing taxes. Red Hat is doing the same thing, threatening to cut off the relationship if you decide to exercise one of the GPL's freedoms. Counts as a restriction in my book.
    - ztrgah 3y ago
      Of course you are correct. The people you are discussing with and who pretend not to understand may be several of the numerous outsourced employees in the Czech Republic or Germany who are awake now.

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.
      - tpush 3y ago
        I 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 ago
        To 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?
        tpush 3y ago
        No, I'm saying your formulation doesn't match Red Hat's EULA.
        Semaphor 3y ago
        How? You just said it does. Assume I’m dumb and explain to me the difference, please.
        tpush 3y ago
        No, I didn't. I'm not sure where you get that from? Anyway, Red Hat's EULA doesn't restrict freedom 4. You asserted an alternative formulation where it does infringe to be equivalent. I reject that equivalence assertion. Does that make it clear?
        Semaphor 3y ago
        What I don’t get is the difference between > 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. And > You can exercise freedom 4, but only if you never use any updated version of this software again To me those seem 100% equivalent in what they do, I’m asking you to explain the difference which is obvious to you, but not to me. I never say already received binaries have their licence violated. I actually never ever said the licence is violated at all, that was in my premise before the IANAL part.
    - shaan7 3y ago
      Well, if you take it so far as death, I can even argue that even death does not stop you from exercising your freedom. You just don't deserve to live if you dare to redistribute my software in a way I don't like. The problem is defining what a "restriction" is. As an example, The Government of India pulled the same tactic as Red Hat in this case. Enrolling in India's biometric Aadhar program is "voluntary", but it is mandatory to do a lot of basic things - like filing taxes. Red Hat is doing the same thing, threatening to cut off the relationship if you decide to exercise one of the GPL's freedoms. Counts as a restriction in my book.
  - ztrgah 3y ago
    Of course you are correct. The people you are discussing with and who pretend not to understand may be several of the numerous outsourced employees in the Czech Republic or Germany who are awake now.