6 ms·

There's no loophole. If you distribute software covered by the GPL, you have to release the source to any person that you distributed the software to, and you

There's no loophole. If you distribute software covered by the GPL, you have to release the source to any person that you distributed the software to, and you have to release it under the same GPL. The real loophole is enforcement. There's no case law that allows an end user to get standing for GPL software, only the copyright holder can enforce the license.

mike_hock 3y ago
> you have to release the source to any person that you distributed the software to, and you have to release it under the same GPL. And this same GPL allows them to further distribute the software to third parties. If you're threatening and intimidating people not to do so, you're subverting the terms of the license.
- linuxftw 3y ago
  Exactly right, which is why I said it's not a loophole. The loophole is who has legal standing in court. The recipient so far has been found to not have standing. So Red Hat can distribute the software, not even tell you about the GPL, and that's that. Unless the original copyright holder wants to sue them. Which in the famous VMware case, at least in Germany IIRC, the bar to prove infringement or derivative work is impossibly high. So, the GPL is mostly worth nothing.
- jzb 3y ago
  It isn't a threat or intimidation - it's simply a potential that Red Hat will stop doing business with you. Imagine for a moment that you're an indie developer and you contract with a company to supply support for a GPL'ed program under the idea that they're using it internally. Next thing you know, they're taking the code you're providing and offering a subscriber service and undermining your livelihood contracting with other companies. OK - the GPL says they can do that. The GPL, however, does not require you to keep doing business with them. So, next contract opportunity you refuse to do business with them. The GPL does not obligate you to re-up with them. Nor should the GPL force Red Hat to supply future updates to customers that threaten its business. Just because people have become accustomed to Red Hat doing more than it has to do doesn't mean they're perpetually obligated to live up to those expectations.
  - mike_hock 3y ago
    It absolute is a threat and intimidation. The situation with the indie developer is not comparable. The massive power asymmetry matters. It just shows that the correct fix isn't some dumb clause that just says "this thing that Redhat did is now forbidden." A cleverer fix might be to require that the source code be made publicly available.
    - jzb 3y ago
      "The massive power asymmetry matters." Rules for thee but not for me? What's the boundary for company size that forces public release of code vs. allowing a small company to choose its customers? If Red Hat's customers find the situation intolerable, they can and will stop paying Red Hat and do business elsewhere. It's not, by and large, Red Hat's customers that are squawking about this - it's people who have decided they're entitled to the clones and are actively undermining Red Hat.
      - hyperhopper 3y ago
        Yes, that's kind of how intimidation works. The mafia doesn't get to claim the shopkeeper is intimidating them.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      a) Red Hat's customers are not tiny. There is no massive power asymmetry. b) Red Hat is not threatening or intimidating anyone any more than the GPL is. It is simply them defining under what terms you can use their product.
Alupis 3y ago
It has to be said over and over, unfortunately. A license or contract is only as good as your ability to enforce it.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> There's no case law that allows an end user to get standing for GPL software There's case law establishing clearly the doctrine that intended third-party beneficiaries can enforce contract provisions, and that the GPL operates as a contract and not just a bare copyright license. There is not yet case law on third-party beneficiaries under the GPL (though there is plenty of rrason to believe that end users are such under the broader case law on the topic), AFAIK, though SFC v. Vizio, currently proceeding under that theory last I saw status, may well provide it.
chasil 3y ago
Red Hat offers free developer accounts with available downloads of the install ISOs. I have never seen the source ISOs from this perspective. However, would it not be trivial for Rocky, Alma, and Oracle to simply use "burner" developer accounts to pull the source ?
- linuxftw 3y ago
  It's interesting that the new agreement terms don't mention distributing 'source code' only 'software.' And the bit about supporting non-Red Hat software, reads as if, you promise you're not going to use Red Hat binary patches to patch Oracle Linux or some other distro, unless you're paying a subscription per instance of said distro. There's really no restriction in this article about distributing the source itself. Red Hat may be happy for this confusion to remain.
flaptrap 3y ago
Again the fallacy. GPLv2 allow (1) giving the source code along with the binaries or (2) promise to allow any third-party to obtain those sources for the cost of copying. The Software Freedom Conservancy post shows that Red Hat considers GPL licensing to be a serious matter. Correct, an end user could not enforce a copyright violation, but the copyright owner can assign those rights. I also think Red Hat is complying with GPL and other licenses, just it is closer to the edge than last month.
hyperhopper 3y ago
The whole purpose of gpl is if you want to be a user of software, you should get freedoms. This effectively eliminates those freedoms by saying that if you use those freedoms, you will no longer be a user. Defeats the whole purpose, definitely a loophole.
- beanjuiceII 3y ago
  you just made 0 sense, you get the freedoms the GPL gives you, the GPL says nothing about you having to continue being a customer of some company
  - hyperhopper 3y ago
    In a practical sense (but not a legal sense), being a user of the software, and being a customer of the company providing the software that you entered into a contract with and paid, are the same thing.
pabs3 3y ago
Software Freedom Conservancy have a legal theory that the GPL functions as both a license and contract and that recipients of GPLed binaries are third-party beneficiaries of the GPL contract. They are also suing Vizio under that theory. Their next court dates are in California in September IIRC. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

mike_hock 3y ago

> you have to release the source to any person that you distributed the software to, and you have to release it under the same GPL. And this same GPL allows them to further distribute the software to third parties. If you're threatening and intimidating people not to do so, you're subverting the terms of the license.

linuxftw 3y ago
Exactly right, which is why I said it's not a loophole. The loophole is who has legal standing in court. The recipient so far has been found to not have standing. So Red Hat can distribute the software, not even tell you about the GPL, and that's that. Unless the original copyright holder wants to sue them. Which in the famous VMware case, at least in Germany IIRC, the bar to prove infringement or derivative work is impossibly high. So, the GPL is mostly worth nothing.
jzb 3y ago
It isn't a threat or intimidation - it's simply a potential that Red Hat will stop doing business with you. Imagine for a moment that you're an indie developer and you contract with a company to supply support for a GPL'ed program under the idea that they're using it internally. Next thing you know, they're taking the code you're providing and offering a subscriber service and undermining your livelihood contracting with other companies. OK - the GPL says they can do that. The GPL, however, does not require you to keep doing business with them. So, next contract opportunity you refuse to do business with them. The GPL does not obligate you to re-up with them. Nor should the GPL force Red Hat to supply future updates to customers that threaten its business. Just because people have become accustomed to Red Hat doing more than it has to do doesn't mean they're perpetually obligated to live up to those expectations.
- mike_hock 3y ago
  It absolute is a threat and intimidation. The situation with the indie developer is not comparable. The massive power asymmetry matters. It just shows that the correct fix isn't some dumb clause that just says "this thing that Redhat did is now forbidden." A cleverer fix might be to require that the source code be made publicly available.
  - jzb 3y ago
    "The massive power asymmetry matters." Rules for thee but not for me? What's the boundary for company size that forces public release of code vs. allowing a small company to choose its customers? If Red Hat's customers find the situation intolerable, they can and will stop paying Red Hat and do business elsewhere. It's not, by and large, Red Hat's customers that are squawking about this - it's people who have decided they're entitled to the clones and are actively undermining Red Hat.
    - hyperhopper 3y ago
      Yes, that's kind of how intimidation works. The mafia doesn't get to claim the shopkeeper is intimidating them.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    a) Red Hat's customers are not tiny. There is no massive power asymmetry. b) Red Hat is not threatening or intimidating anyone any more than the GPL is. It is simply them defining under what terms you can use their product.

Alupis 3y ago

It has to be said over and over, unfortunately. A license or contract is only as good as your ability to enforce it.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> There's no case law that allows an end user to get standing for GPL software There's case law establishing clearly the doctrine that intended third-party beneficiaries can enforce contract provisions, and that the GPL operates as a contract and not just a bare copyright license. There is not yet case law on third-party beneficiaries under the GPL (though there is plenty of rrason to believe that end users are such under the broader case law on the topic), AFAIK, though SFC v. Vizio, currently proceeding under that theory last I saw status, may well provide it.

chasil 3y ago

Red Hat offers free developer accounts with available downloads of the install ISOs. I have never seen the source ISOs from this perspective. However, would it not be trivial for Rocky, Alma, and Oracle to simply use "burner" developer accounts to pull the source ?

linuxftw 3y ago
It's interesting that the new agreement terms don't mention distributing 'source code' only 'software.' And the bit about supporting non-Red Hat software, reads as if, you promise you're not going to use Red Hat binary patches to patch Oracle Linux or some other distro, unless you're paying a subscription per instance of said distro. There's really no restriction in this article about distributing the source itself. Red Hat may be happy for this confusion to remain.

flaptrap 3y ago

Again the fallacy. GPLv2 allow (1) giving the source code along with the binaries or (2) promise to allow any third-party to obtain those sources for the cost of copying. The Software Freedom Conservancy post shows that Red Hat considers GPL licensing to be a serious matter. Correct, an end user could not enforce a copyright violation, but the copyright owner can assign those rights. I also think Red Hat is complying with GPL and other licenses, just it is closer to the edge than last month.

hyperhopper 3y ago

The whole purpose of gpl is if you want to be a user of software, you should get freedoms. This effectively eliminates those freedoms by saying that if you use those freedoms, you will no longer be a user. Defeats the whole purpose, definitely a loophole.

beanjuiceII 3y ago
you just made 0 sense, you get the freedoms the GPL gives you, the GPL says nothing about you having to continue being a customer of some company
- hyperhopper 3y ago
  In a practical sense (but not a legal sense), being a user of the software, and being a customer of the company providing the software that you entered into a contract with and paid, are the same thing.

pabs3 3y ago

Software Freedom Conservancy have a legal theory that the GPL functions as both a license and contract and that recipients of GPLed binaries are third-party beneficiaries of the GPL contract. They are also suing Vizio under that theory. Their next court dates are in California in September IIRC. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html