6 ms·

They are providing the source as required. However, a key part of the GPL is that RH's customers should also be able to redistribute the source to anyone else,

They are providing the source as required. However, a key part of the GPL is that RH's customers should also be able to redistribute the source to anyone else, and RH is preventing that through contract law.

jaywalk 3y ago
They are, of course, always free to distribute the source to anyone else. RedHat cannot stop that. But if they do distribute the source to anyone else, RedHat is free to stop taking their money and not provide the software and source code to them in the future. It's shitty, but I can't see any realistic way to close this loophole.
- nextaccountic 3y ago
  GPL says that you can't impose further restrictions on the people you distribute GPL software to. Everybody should receive the entire set of freedoms unfeterred. Using contract law (or using blackmail, or using anything else) to restrict redistribution of the source appears to not be in compliance of GPL to me. I can't see how a judge might find otherwise. The problem is, who has standing here? The Red Hat customer or the copyright holder?
  - dralley 3y ago
    How about we use a different analogy. Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft - they all have patches to the linux kernel which they do not always open source. And nothing in the GPL compels them to open source them so long as they aren't distributed outside the company, and are only used on internal systems. Let's say an employee with access to those internal kernels, who is under an employment contract and non-disclosure agreement, releases the kernel source code with those patches included. Would the GPL prevent that employee from being fired and/or sued for violation of NDA? Nope. >GPL says that you can't impose further restrictions on the people you distribute GPL software to. That's just the thing. Red Hat does not impose any further restrictions on the software that has been distributed to you. You can continue using RHEL, in theory, even with an expired license. There is no "kill switch". But Red Hat is not obligated to continue providing you with access to their services, including their software update repositories.
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      >>Would the GPL prevent that employee from being fired and/or sued for violation of NDA? That is not even close to being an analogy. In that case the Code, copyright, was not transferred to the employee, They are not operating under the conditions of the GPL at all. As an employee I am not given a "license" to the code as I would be as a customer or licensee of the code. As such violation of the NDA would have nothing to do with the GPL at all.
      - dralley 3y ago
        > In that case the Code, copyright, was not transferred to the employee, They are not operating under the conditions of the GPL at all. In this scenario let's say that the patches are GPLv2 licensed and apply to a larger GPLv2 codebase, as opposed to something like a separate kernel module. So the code is, indeed, GPL, and both the built kernels and the source itself are unambiguously a derivative work of GPL code. And this code is distributed to you as part of your job. It wasn't stolen, it was provided to you with specific terms of use, namely that it only be used within the company. Is your argument that there can be no legal constraints beyond what "the GPL says" in this situation? That those constraints shouldn't apply, because they infringe your GPL-provided rights?
    - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
      As the GPL FAQ says, distribution between employees of the same company may not even be considered "distribution" depending on the region. The analogy is stretching this too far.
      - dralley 3y ago
        Fine - so make them third party contractors instead of employees of the same company. The end result is the same.
        AshamedCaptain 3y ago
        No, it's not. Even if they were employees of a different company that is a subcontractor, the jurisprudence is not clear at all. This is basically the "museum argument" which is quite old. It's an entire different story if you do distribute the software to your subcontractors for their use.
  - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
    it's not a restriction if they're never forced to agree to it giving certain users advantages over others isn't a violation of the license
  - eesmith 3y ago
    What customers have bought is a support contract, which includes distribution of software under the GPL. What Red Hat is threatening to do is to stop allowing customers to renew the support contract, and stop allowing customers from buying a new support contract. The GPL does not (outside of a couple of small details for how to get access to the source) require a software distributor to provide continuing services. Otherwise you get into all sorts of strange cases, like Alice and Bob are friends working on a GPL project, Bob sends a copy to Eve, who collaborates with Bob. But Alice hates Eve, so stops working with Bob on the project. The GPL does not prevent that sort of retaliation for redistributing software. If it does, where? Why should forcing continued collaboration be part of freedoms of the GPL? Switching away from the analogy, where does the GPL say there's a difference if money is involved?
  - Semaphor 3y ago
    So while I strongly believe this violates the spirit, I disagree about this violating the letter. You are free to distribute, all that will happen is that you lost future access. Trust sounds like a full legal loophole.
  - stock_toaster 3y ago
    Would the copyright holder (GPL'd software) have standing to sue for Tortious interference, being that the GPL is a contract between the copyright holder and end user?
- SkyBelow 3y ago
  RedHat cannot choose to stop doing business with someone because they belong to a protected class, so we have already set the standard that government can force someone to do business with someone else. We can consider 'being forced to follow the contract you agreed to' as an invalid reason to stop doing business. Sure, it'll take a bit more work to get out the kinks compared to the 2 minutes of effort I put into it, but it shows a realistic way to limit this loophole. As with any law, not everyone will follow it, but that is rarely used as a reason to dismiss a law. Edit: Fixed typo on how the current law works.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    > cannot choose to stop doing business with someone belonging to a protected class Think for a moment. Race is a protected class. How does anyone stop doing business with anyone?
  - angus-prune 3y ago
    Redhat can absolutely stop doing business with someone in a protected class. They can stop doing business with anyone in any protected class. What they can't do is stop doing business with someone because they belong to a protected class. You would have to argue that support of the GPL was a religious belief to gain such protections.
    - rlpb 3y ago
      That's not relevant to the point, since it's analogous to them choosing not to do business with someone because they redistributed the software. The motivation is not a point that's in question.
    - SkyBelow 3y ago
      That was a typo on my part. I've corrected it. >You would have to argue that support of the GPL was a religious belief to gain such protections. Under the current law I don't think there is a path to allow this. I'm suggesting a new law. The reason for the new law would be to close a loophole which lets megacorporations skip having to follow contracts (or even laws, as there is a similar problem there).
- jackcviers3 3y ago
  I think it is exactly as intended. As a developer of an open source project, you are not required to give your source code and _any other derivative of that code_ to _all users_. You are only required to give _each_ user the source code for what has been distributed to them. Any user is free to turn around and _redistribute_ or modify anything that has already been distributed to them. The user is not required to distribute modified derivative source back to the original developer, unless the user has distributed a running copy of the derivative. The license says nothing about not being able to _charge_ users for the original executable software. It says nothing about guaranteeing delivery of executable derivatives made by the original author in perpetuity. In this way, the incentives are aligned to: 1. Produce useful running software that is of the same scale of usefulness and complexity of things such as Chrome and Windows, because these complex software packages have enormous value and cost time and money to make and should be profitable for the maker. 2. Also produce useful running software that the user is allowed to fix or build new, useful derivatives upon through receiving the source. For which they can then charge. Doing so, the original author may decide to not deliver any further derivative executables to the user, meaning that the user is no longer entitled to source code. The user now bears the maintenance burden for their entire product -- which, when distributed, must come with a copy of the source. I think this allows for users to generate their own commercial value streams from the originator while protecting the originator's ability to make money, and I think it is a good thing. Open source work need not be volunteer work. You want updates, you comply with the terms of the license. You want to make a derivative work for your own profit and redistribute it, fine, but you'll have to renegotiate the price for the originator's updates to get the updates and the corresponding source updates. Sounds like an excellent way for open-source devs to actually get paid for maintenance work, IMHO. It need not be free as in beer to provide value, and freedom, to users.
- rurban 3y ago
  The key is not the source code RHEL ships, the key is the list of names of patches RHEL takes from Centos Stream/Fedora to get to a stable LTE environment. The code is all known, the patches are all known, but which patchsets did get into it is their business model.

jaywalk 3y ago

They are, of course, always free to distribute the source to anyone else. RedHat cannot stop that. But if they do distribute the source to anyone else, RedHat is free to stop taking their money and not provide the software and source code to them in the future. It's shitty, but I can't see any realistic way to close this loophole.

nextaccountic 3y ago
GPL says that you can't impose further restrictions on the people you distribute GPL software to. Everybody should receive the entire set of freedoms unfeterred. Using contract law (or using blackmail, or using anything else) to restrict redistribution of the source appears to not be in compliance of GPL to me. I can't see how a judge might find otherwise. The problem is, who has standing here? The Red Hat customer or the copyright holder?
- dralley 3y ago
  How about we use a different analogy. Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft - they all have patches to the linux kernel which they do not always open source. And nothing in the GPL compels them to open source them so long as they aren't distributed outside the company, and are only used on internal systems. Let's say an employee with access to those internal kernels, who is under an employment contract and non-disclosure agreement, releases the kernel source code with those patches included. Would the GPL prevent that employee from being fired and/or sued for violation of NDA? Nope. >GPL says that you can't impose further restrictions on the people you distribute GPL software to. That's just the thing. Red Hat does not impose any further restrictions on the software that has been distributed to you. You can continue using RHEL, in theory, even with an expired license. There is no "kill switch". But Red Hat is not obligated to continue providing you with access to their services, including their software update repositories.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    >>Would the GPL prevent that employee from being fired and/or sued for violation of NDA? That is not even close to being an analogy. In that case the Code, copyright, was not transferred to the employee, They are not operating under the conditions of the GPL at all. As an employee I am not given a "license" to the code as I would be as a customer or licensee of the code. As such violation of the NDA would have nothing to do with the GPL at all.
    - dralley 3y ago
      > In that case the Code, copyright, was not transferred to the employee, They are not operating under the conditions of the GPL at all. In this scenario let's say that the patches are GPLv2 licensed and apply to a larger GPLv2 codebase, as opposed to something like a separate kernel module. So the code is, indeed, GPL, and both the built kernels and the source itself are unambiguously a derivative work of GPL code. And this code is distributed to you as part of your job. It wasn't stolen, it was provided to you with specific terms of use, namely that it only be used within the company. Is your argument that there can be no legal constraints beyond what "the GPL says" in this situation? That those constraints shouldn't apply, because they infringe your GPL-provided rights?
  - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
    As the GPL FAQ says, distribution between employees of the same company may not even be considered "distribution" depending on the region. The analogy is stretching this too far.
    - dralley 3y ago
      Fine - so make them third party contractors instead of employees of the same company. The end result is the same.
      - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
        No, it's not. Even if they were employees of a different company that is a subcontractor, the jurisprudence is not clear at all. This is basically the "museum argument" which is quite old. It's an entire different story if you do distribute the software to your subcontractors for their use.
- iraqmtpizza 3y ago
  it's not a restriction if they're never forced to agree to it giving certain users advantages over others isn't a violation of the license
- eesmith 3y ago
  What customers have bought is a support contract, which includes distribution of software under the GPL. What Red Hat is threatening to do is to stop allowing customers to renew the support contract, and stop allowing customers from buying a new support contract. The GPL does not (outside of a couple of small details for how to get access to the source) require a software distributor to provide continuing services. Otherwise you get into all sorts of strange cases, like Alice and Bob are friends working on a GPL project, Bob sends a copy to Eve, who collaborates with Bob. But Alice hates Eve, so stops working with Bob on the project. The GPL does not prevent that sort of retaliation for redistributing software. If it does, where? Why should forcing continued collaboration be part of freedoms of the GPL? Switching away from the analogy, where does the GPL say there's a difference if money is involved?
- Semaphor 3y ago
  So while I strongly believe this violates the spirit, I disagree about this violating the letter. You are free to distribute, all that will happen is that you lost future access. Trust sounds like a full legal loophole.
- stock_toaster 3y ago
  Would the copyright holder (GPL'd software) have standing to sue for Tortious interference, being that the GPL is a contract between the copyright holder and end user?
SkyBelow 3y ago
RedHat cannot choose to stop doing business with someone because they belong to a protected class, so we have already set the standard that government can force someone to do business with someone else. We can consider 'being forced to follow the contract you agreed to' as an invalid reason to stop doing business. Sure, it'll take a bit more work to get out the kinks compared to the 2 minutes of effort I put into it, but it shows a realistic way to limit this loophole. As with any law, not everyone will follow it, but that is rarely used as a reason to dismiss a law. Edit: Fixed typo on how the current law works.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  > cannot choose to stop doing business with someone belonging to a protected class Think for a moment. Race is a protected class. How does anyone stop doing business with anyone?
- angus-prune 3y ago
  Redhat can absolutely stop doing business with someone in a protected class. They can stop doing business with anyone in any protected class. What they can't do is stop doing business with someone because they belong to a protected class. You would have to argue that support of the GPL was a religious belief to gain such protections.
  - rlpb 3y ago
    That's not relevant to the point, since it's analogous to them choosing not to do business with someone because they redistributed the software. The motivation is not a point that's in question.
  - SkyBelow 3y ago
    That was a typo on my part. I've corrected it. >You would have to argue that support of the GPL was a religious belief to gain such protections. Under the current law I don't think there is a path to allow this. I'm suggesting a new law. The reason for the new law would be to close a loophole which lets megacorporations skip having to follow contracts (or even laws, as there is a similar problem there).
jackcviers3 3y ago
I think it is exactly as intended. As a developer of an open source project, you are not required to give your source code and _any other derivative of that code_ to _all users_. You are only required to give _each_ user the source code for what has been distributed to them. Any user is free to turn around and _redistribute_ or modify anything that has already been distributed to them. The user is not required to distribute modified derivative source back to the original developer, unless the user has distributed a running copy of the derivative. The license says nothing about not being able to _charge_ users for the original executable software. It says nothing about guaranteeing delivery of executable derivatives made by the original author in perpetuity. In this way, the incentives are aligned to: 1. Produce useful running software that is of the same scale of usefulness and complexity of things such as Chrome and Windows, because these complex software packages have enormous value and cost time and money to make and should be profitable for the maker. 2. Also produce useful running software that the user is allowed to fix or build new, useful derivatives upon through receiving the source. For which they can then charge. Doing so, the original author may decide to not deliver any further derivative executables to the user, meaning that the user is no longer entitled to source code. The user now bears the maintenance burden for their entire product -- which, when distributed, must come with a copy of the source. I think this allows for users to generate their own commercial value streams from the originator while protecting the originator's ability to make money, and I think it is a good thing. Open source work need not be volunteer work. You want updates, you comply with the terms of the license. You want to make a derivative work for your own profit and redistribute it, fine, but you'll have to renegotiate the price for the originator's updates to get the updates and the corresponding source updates. Sounds like an excellent way for open-source devs to actually get paid for maintenance work, IMHO. It need not be free as in beer to provide value, and freedom, to users.
rurban 3y ago
The key is not the source code RHEL ships, the key is the list of names of patches RHEL takes from Centos Stream/Fedora to get to a stable LTE environment. The code is all known, the patches are all known, but which patchsets did get into it is their business model.