5 ms·

> 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 th

> 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.

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.