3 ms·

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

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.
        tpush 3y ago
        Your version rescinds freedom 4 upon using an updated version. Red Hat's EULA doesn't do that.
        Semaphor 3y ago
        Okay, 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 ago
        I'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.
        Semaphor 3y ago
        Yes, you are. I repeatedly said it’s about the spirit, not about some lawyer compliance stuff. You either tell me how our versions differ for the user of the software effectively, or you don’t need to bother answering, I won’t.

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.
        tpush 3y ago
        Your version rescinds freedom 4 upon using an updated version. Red Hat's EULA doesn't do that.
        Semaphor 3y ago
        Okay, 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 ago
        I'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.
        Semaphor 3y ago
        Yes, you are. I repeatedly said it’s about the spirit, not about some lawyer compliance stuff. You either tell me how our versions differ for the user of the software effectively, or you don’t need to bother answering, I won’t.