3 ms·

GPL Version 2: "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original l

GPL Version 2: "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." (emphasis added) GPL Version 3: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License" (emphasis added)

tsimionescu 3y ago
And they don't - if you buy a license, you can download all of the sources for free. They simply refuse to do further business with you if you choose to excercise your right to distribute it further. Nothing in the letter of the GPL prevents me from refusing to do further business with you (including providing you access to future changes to the GPL software or its sources) if you choose to excercise any of the four freedoms. Of course, there are good reasons to believe this violates the spirit of the GPL, but that's beside the point.
jzb 3y ago
The question is whether Red Hat's subscriber agreement constitutes a restriction on exercising their GPL'ed rights. You get source to RHEL 8.5. You rebuild it (carefully removing Red Hat marks/logos to avoid being snagged for abusing the trademarks), and Red Hat says "ok, you're done. Go ahead and distribute that all you like, but we're cutting you off." Your rights are intact, but your subscription and access are severed. I've said this elsewhere: I don't think you or anybody really wants a GPL that can be used to force a business to continue its relationship with someone it doesn't want to do business with. What's to stop a company from claiming that their subscription was really terminated for redistributing code and not because they failed to pay their bill or maybe because they were abusive to Red Hat support folks? For that matter, what's to stop Red Hat or another company from removing that from their agreement but continuing to cancel subscriptions (or just refusing to renew) without stating cause? People who think that this GPL provision is going to force Red Hat to just open the floodgates again and continue pushing out exact RHEL release code are likely very, very mistaken. If Red Hat has decided to stick a spoke in the clones' wheels, it can simply release only GPL'ed code and stop releasing any non-GPL'ed code that doesn't require it. The current scenario with the code Red Hat releases to Stream is infinitely better in every way except if all you want to do is rebuild the "bug-for-bug" clones or consume them. As far as I'm concerned it more than meets Red Hat's minimum requirements to comply with the GPL and as a participant in open source. Unlike scores of open core companies, all of Red Hat's features and innovations are being released - the sole thing being held back is exact clones of its product.
- kriberg 3y ago
  They could also release just application source code and not the spec files for building the package. It's the spec files and the patches that's central in this conflict, not the actual source code, but people keep conflating the two.
  - jzb 3y ago
    Red Hat may release spec files to conform to the requirement that source code includes "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." Note that this particular requirement got a fair amount of attention in 2011 when Red Hat changed its kernel source releases and stopped breaking out patches. (Here: https://lwn.net/Articles/430098/ https://lwn.net/Articles/430098/)
    - kriberg 3y ago
      Hard to judge if that covers just makefiles or if it also covers rpms. Guess it makes sense they should share the scripts required to rebuild the binary as it's delivered by them
      - jzb 3y ago
        Yeah. Here I see Red Hat trying hard to live up to the letter and spirit of the GPL, but it's not getting appropriate credit on that one. In some ways I think of the GPL(s) like the Bill of Rights. Great document, great ideas behind it - falls flat in some respects today due to age and ambiguity.

tsimionescu 3y ago

And they don't - if you buy a license, you can download all of the sources for free. They simply refuse to do further business with you if you choose to excercise your right to distribute it further. Nothing in the letter of the GPL prevents me from refusing to do further business with you (including providing you access to future changes to the GPL software or its sources) if you choose to excercise any of the four freedoms. Of course, there are good reasons to believe this violates the spirit of the GPL, but that's beside the point.

jzb 3y ago

The question is whether Red Hat's subscriber agreement constitutes a restriction on exercising their GPL'ed rights. You get source to RHEL 8.5. You rebuild it (carefully removing Red Hat marks/logos to avoid being snagged for abusing the trademarks), and Red Hat says "ok, you're done. Go ahead and distribute that all you like, but we're cutting you off." Your rights are intact, but your subscription and access are severed. I've said this elsewhere: I don't think you or anybody really wants a GPL that can be used to force a business to continue its relationship with someone it doesn't want to do business with. What's to stop a company from claiming that their subscription was really terminated for redistributing code and not because they failed to pay their bill or maybe because they were abusive to Red Hat support folks? For that matter, what's to stop Red Hat or another company from removing that from their agreement but continuing to cancel subscriptions (or just refusing to renew) without stating cause? People who think that this GPL provision is going to force Red Hat to just open the floodgates again and continue pushing out exact RHEL release code are likely very, very mistaken. If Red Hat has decided to stick a spoke in the clones' wheels, it can simply release only GPL'ed code and stop releasing any non-GPL'ed code that doesn't require it. The current scenario with the code Red Hat releases to Stream is infinitely better in every way except if all you want to do is rebuild the "bug-for-bug" clones or consume them. As far as I'm concerned it more than meets Red Hat's minimum requirements to comply with the GPL and as a participant in open source. Unlike scores of open core companies, all of Red Hat's features and innovations are being released - the sole thing being held back is exact clones of its product.

kriberg 3y ago
They could also release just application source code and not the spec files for building the package. It's the spec files and the patches that's central in this conflict, not the actual source code, but people keep conflating the two.
- jzb 3y ago
  Red Hat may release spec files to conform to the requirement that source code includes "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." Note that this particular requirement got a fair amount of attention in 2011 when Red Hat changed its kernel source releases and stopped breaking out patches. (Here: https://lwn.net/Articles/430098/ https://lwn.net/Articles/430098/)
  - kriberg 3y ago
    Hard to judge if that covers just makefiles or if it also covers rpms. Guess it makes sense they should share the scripts required to rebuild the binary as it's delivered by them
    - jzb 3y ago
      Yeah. Here I see Red Hat trying hard to live up to the letter and spirit of the GPL, but it's not getting appropriate credit on that one. In some ways I think of the GPL(s) like the Bill of Rights. Great document, great ideas behind it - falls flat in some respects today due to age and ambiguity.