4 ms·

That is certainly what RH likes to claim, but it always struck me as extremely suspicious logic. If the license says you have to share code with users and canno

That is certainly what RH likes to claim, but it always struck me as extremely suspicious logic. If the license says you have to share code with users and cannot restrict their rights to do the same, and they exercise those rights and you immediately retaliate, it sure seems like a reasonable person would say that you're restricting the rights of your customers in direct contravention of the license terms.

arccy 3y ago
an ongoing (future) relationship isn't a right
- torstenvl 3y ago
  Neither is employment. But there are still consequences for firing someone for an unlawful reason. I'm not saying Red Hat is wrong—I'm still undecided—but I don't think your logic is very persuasive.
- cool_dude85 3y ago
  If you sign an employment contract that specifies you can only be fired for X and Y, and the company fires you for Z, you can sue. That doesn't mean your ongoing relationship is a right, it means one party didn't live up to the contract.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  Of course not. Just as use of GPL software isn't a right. Stop using copyleft software and you won't have to worry about those licenses giving your customers rights.
bruce511 3y ago
I think we can agree that businesses have the right to "fire" their customers, for (pretty much) any reason try like. Of course, as with any "subjective" behavior right, there can be regulatory implications (Christian cake shops selling wedding cakes to gay couples springs to mind.) I'm not aware of any regulations though that would force RH to keep customers that broke their source-distribution-embargo. Clearly RH is not impinging on the users rights to distribute the source. They are impinging on the "privilege" of being a customer. Does that second-order effect fall under the GPL? Smarter lawyers than me will decide, but it seems like a tough sell. Of course we may not -like- that restriction, but its a long way from there to -legal- requirements. It's hard really to see how one can mandate an OSS company to -have- to do business with "any customer" when the moral-principle-premise is so high in OSS. I'm not sure that a regulation against RH would be a win for OSS in general.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  > I think we can agree that businesses have the right to "fire" their customers, for (pretty much) any reason try like. Unless of course the business is subject to a contract which prohibits firing customers for that reason. For instance, if it uses the words > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. then no, they certainly don't have the right to fire customers for exercise of the rights granted therein. (your next few paragraphs say the same thing in different words, so I'm going to skip them) > It's hard really to see how one can mandate an OSS company to -have- to do business with "any customer" when the moral-principle-premise is so high in OSS. I don't know what you mean by "moral-principle-premise", so forgive me if this isn't what your saying, but I think it's really easy to see how one could mandate that RH honor the GPL; if they retaliate against a customer for using their rights, then RH no longer has a license to use GPL software and get to be sued into oblivion. This would be much like how employees are protected against retaliation under assorted circumstances; you can fire an employee who alleged sexual harassment, but that had better not be the reason and you'd better have a very good paper trail to prove as much.
  - bruce511 3y ago
    >>> You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. RH is not imposing any restriction on the rights granted herein. They are laying out consequences for exercising those rights. That's not the same as a restriction.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      That is absolutely a restriction, just not implemented via technical measures; it is a behavior that is intended to prevent customers from exercising their rights. If you impose "consequences" for a behavior, you're obviously acting to stop people from doing it.
- cjbprime 3y ago
  By coming up with the comparison to wedding cakes, you came very close to working out the intuition supporting the argument you're challenging. Companies can discriminate against you for any unprotected reason. Whether the license claims are protection is exactly the question here.
trimistermota 3y ago
License only talks about current software version dump. It says nothing about future software versions..
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  It does, however, talk about restricting users exercising their rights, which it clearly the point of such behavior.

arccy 3y ago

an ongoing (future) relationship isn't a right

torstenvl 3y ago
Neither is employment. But there are still consequences for firing someone for an unlawful reason. I'm not saying Red Hat is wrong—I'm still undecided—but I don't think your logic is very persuasive.
cool_dude85 3y ago
If you sign an employment contract that specifies you can only be fired for X and Y, and the company fires you for Z, you can sue. That doesn't mean your ongoing relationship is a right, it means one party didn't live up to the contract.
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
Of course not. Just as use of GPL software isn't a right. Stop using copyleft software and you won't have to worry about those licenses giving your customers rights.

bruce511 3y ago

I think we can agree that businesses have the right to "fire" their customers, for (pretty much) any reason try like. Of course, as with any "subjective" behavior right, there can be regulatory implications (Christian cake shops selling wedding cakes to gay couples springs to mind.) I'm not aware of any regulations though that would force RH to keep customers that broke their source-distribution-embargo. Clearly RH is not impinging on the users rights to distribute the source. They are impinging on the "privilege" of being a customer. Does that second-order effect fall under the GPL? Smarter lawyers than me will decide, but it seems like a tough sell. Of course we may not -like- that restriction, but its a long way from there to -legal- requirements. It's hard really to see how one can mandate an OSS company to -have- to do business with "any customer" when the moral-principle-premise is so high in OSS. I'm not sure that a regulation against RH would be a win for OSS in general.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> I think we can agree that businesses have the right to "fire" their customers, for (pretty much) any reason try like. Unless of course the business is subject to a contract which prohibits firing customers for that reason. For instance, if it uses the words > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. then no, they certainly don't have the right to fire customers for exercise of the rights granted therein. (your next few paragraphs say the same thing in different words, so I'm going to skip them) > It's hard really to see how one can mandate an OSS company to -have- to do business with "any customer" when the moral-principle-premise is so high in OSS. I don't know what you mean by "moral-principle-premise", so forgive me if this isn't what your saying, but I think it's really easy to see how one could mandate that RH honor the GPL; if they retaliate against a customer for using their rights, then RH no longer has a license to use GPL software and get to be sued into oblivion. This would be much like how employees are protected against retaliation under assorted circumstances; you can fire an employee who alleged sexual harassment, but that had better not be the reason and you'd better have a very good paper trail to prove as much.
- bruce511 3y ago
  >>> You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. RH is not imposing any restriction on the rights granted herein. They are laying out consequences for exercising those rights. That's not the same as a restriction.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    That is absolutely a restriction, just not implemented via technical measures; it is a behavior that is intended to prevent customers from exercising their rights. If you impose "consequences" for a behavior, you're obviously acting to stop people from doing it.
cjbprime 3y ago
By coming up with the comparison to wedding cakes, you came very close to working out the intuition supporting the argument you're challenging. Companies can discriminate against you for any unprotected reason. Whether the license claims are protection is exactly the question here.

trimistermota 3y ago

License only talks about current software version dump. It says nothing about future software versions..

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
It does, however, talk about restricting users exercising their rights, which it clearly the point of such behavior.