5 ms·
"you are only entitled to the source if you are a user of said software." Correct but incomplete. One of the rights you automatically get is the right to share
by dizhn 3y ago
"you are only entitled to the source if you are a user of said software."
Correct but incomplete. One of the rights you automatically get is the right to share said source code. RedHat is making this forbidden with a contract.
IMO this is the only thing Red Hat is doing wrong
(That and changing the end of support date for Centos 8 after they had already committed to a longer timeframe. But this is a different topic.)
- Knee_Pain 3y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but sharing the source simply cancels the contract or you receive some legal penalties as well?
- dizhn 3y agoBoth commenters to my comment used the word "simply". I don't think this is simple at all. How is it simple for a company who wants support from a vendor to "simply" lose that support even though the license of the code was specifically designed to ensure the very thing.
- oso2k 3y agoThis is incorrect. Sharing source, you receive from Red Hat as part of your Subscription, is not limited by our Subscription Agreements and there is no penalty for sharing it. See Section 1.4 here. https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Appendix-1-Global-English-20230620.pdf https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Appendix-1-Global-English-20... Specifically, This Agreement establishes the rights and obligations associated with Subscription Services and is not intended to limit your rights to software code under the terms of an open source license.
- dizhn 3y agoThis is interesting. If this is indeed the case then much of the discussion around it could be considered FUD. Why is redhat not addressing it? Why did the false idea get traction in the first place?
- oso2k 3y agoI do think Mike McGrath tried to communicate this. It got missed somehow. Maybe we now got a case of foot (or even two feet) inserted into mouth. It’s highly emotional topic, even internally. I don’t know what the communications strategy is. Not my job. I will say that we’re encouraged internally, “don’t feed the trolls” and to let our various communication teams and leaders to do their jobs. I just hope others like maddog guide the community back to sane discussions.
- op00to 3y agoYou're still able to share the source code. Red Hat simply decides not to give you new binaries, so you don't get new source code. Why is this so difficult to understand?
- dizhn 3y agoThis is not difficult to understand at all. There's actually nothing to understand. It's facts. How people will respond to it is where you'll have variety. I don't think it's proper to use a license then add an auxiliary thing that goes against the spirit of the thing. This is my opinion.
- op00to 3y agoIn what way is the spirit of the GPL that you’re forced to provide product updates to someone for perpetuity?
- dizhn 3y agoAs long as you keep basing your product on GPLed code of course. You can always write everything yourself, take software with a more permissive license, or don't provide updates to anybody.
- op00to 3y agoThe GPL does not say that. You may feel that way, but it doesn’t change the GPL. It is not the spirit of the GPL to force continued distribution of source.
- dizhn 3y agoYou distribute binaries you have to distribute its source as well. There is no scenario I know of where this is not true. If there is, please explain. There is no forcing involved and I have not claimed there is.