3 ms·
I don't believe this is true. It's almost certainly not true for instances of distributing a limited set of sources. That is, I seriously doubt Red Hat or IBM a
by jzb 3y ago
I don't believe this is true. It's almost certainly not true for instances of distributing a limited set of sources. That is, I seriously doubt Red Hat or IBM are looking to cancel subscriptions if I download the latest package from RHEL 9.x for Bash or even the Linux kernel and distribute those sources quietly.
If I download everything and advertise a rebuild based on those sources? I'd expect that my subscription will be going away soon. There's probably a line somewhere in between where Red Hat would take notice and care.
But I would wager a good bottle of Scotch[1] that line is much closer to "everything" than a maintainer grabbing Red Hat's changes to their work via a sign-in to the no-cost account and incorporating those changes or something like that.
[1] Say, Auchentoshan Three Wood or something good but not like 30-year-old Speyside. I'm not made of money...
- tsimionescu 3y agoPer the RHEL subscription agreement, you lose your subscription if you do any of this. Of course, whether they will choose to act on the letter of the contract or not is up to them, but the letter is clear.
- ComputerGuru 3y agoNo, per the RHEL agreement they have the right to terminate your subscription "upon review" if you do any of this. It's a subtle difference but it's also worlds apart from "you will have your subscription terminated" (i.e. automatically, as a matter of fact/contract) in the court of law (and in terms of real world repercussions for anyone that isn't building a competing distro).
- omniglottal 3y agoThat risk is non-zero in a world where zero of these risks exist for any other GPL software. Relying on nonenforcement is a monumentally foolish business decision.