4 ms·
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
by 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 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?
- tpush 3y agoNo, I'm saying your formulation doesn't match Red Hat's EULA.
- Semaphor 3y agoHow? You just said it does. Assume I’m dumb and explain to me the difference, please.
- tpush 3y agoNo, 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 agoWhat 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.
- tpush 3y agoYour version rescinds freedom 4 upon using an updated version. Red Hat's EULA doesn't do that.
- Semaphor 3y agoOkay, so you are saying you are just nitpicking? This is still the same in pretty much every way: You can exercise freedom 4, but only if you never use any version of this software released after exercising that freedom.
- tpush 3y agoI'm not nitpicking, what I've said is the difference between GPL compliance and not. This next version of yours is different to Red Hat's EULA in the same way.
- shaan7 3y agoWell, 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.