5 ms·

I'm familiar with the GPL -- one of the key provisions is that users can redistribute the code -- whether RedHat decides to release one version or zero versions

by xt00 3y ago

I'm familiar with the GPL -- one of the key provisions is that users can redistribute the code -- whether RedHat decides to release one version or zero versions of their code should not prevent anybody from redistributing that code when there is an associated binary. Yes you can charge people for that binary and sell the code as well, but if somebody takes the code and redistributes it and even sells it, then they also have to allow others to distribute it -- its like a river of open source that everybody benefits from. Maybe I'm missing the magic sentence in the GPLv2 or v3 license that says something like "if your user takes the code you provided that was under GPL license and sells it, you can sue to stop them." If RHEL succeeds in creating a model that other companies clone where because they provided valuable work they get to stop others from getting a copy of their source code, then the GPL license is basically dead.

yawaramin 3y ago
> Maybe I'm missing the magic sentence in the GPLv2 or v3 license that says something like "if your user takes the code you provided that was under GPL license and sells it, you can sue to stop them." You missed the actual events that happened and made up a narrative of 'Red Hat is suing to stop their customers from redistributing the RHEL source code'. They are not doing that, they are deciding to part ways with customers who do that. The customer still has the right--per the GPL--to keep distributing the copy of the RHEL source code that they got from RHEL, and no one is stopping them from doing that.
Spooky23 3y ago
You’re ranting based on internet trolls. GPL doesn’t state that you need to provide source code in any particular form. You can ship a CD to folks who ask and be compliant. They release all of the code for RHEL in git. The just stopped publishing SRPMs so you cannot trivially duplicate RHEL. L

by xt00 3y ago

yawaramin 3y ago

> Maybe I'm missing the magic sentence in the GPLv2 or v3 license that says something like "if your user takes the code you provided that was under GPL license and sells it, you can sue to stop them." You missed the actual events that happened and made up a narrative of 'Red Hat is suing to stop their customers from redistributing the RHEL source code'. They are not doing that, they are deciding to part ways with customers who do that. The customer still has the right--per the GPL--to keep distributing the copy of the RHEL source code that they got from RHEL, and no one is stopping them from doing that.

Spooky23 3y ago

You’re ranting based on internet trolls. GPL doesn’t state that you need to provide source code in any particular form. You can ship a CD to folks who ask and be compliant. They release all of the code for RHEL in git. The just stopped publishing SRPMs so you cannot trivially duplicate RHEL. L