3 ms·
GPL v2 part 6: > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. I think it can be reasonably argued tha
by dsr_ 3y ago
GPL v2 part 6:
> You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
I think it can be reasonably argued that a contract designed to defeat the intent of the license is "a further restriction".
The correct remedy is not to require Red Hat to restore their former client's contract.
The correct remedy is that Red Hat, and thus IBM, is no longer licensed to use GPL v2 software.
- nocoiner 3y agoOK. Let’s say Red Hat Linux Distributors Inc. is the software licensor. And Red Hat Support LLC is the support provider. RHLDI distributes software (and source) in compliance with GPLv2. RHSLLC has a provision in its contract that a support customer may not re-distribute any source that it receives from RHLDI. Where’s the breach of the GPL? The reference to “You” in that instance, about not being able to impose additional restrictions, would have to be give additional words and meaning not present in the contract for that line to mean what you say it means. If that’s what the license is supposed to prevent, it really needs to be written in a way that clearly addresses this fact pattern.
- dsr_ 3y agoNo, you're missing the point. The Linux Kernel is the big GPL v2 fish. It's not a Red Hat licensing to Red Hat situation.