3 ms·
Some analysis of the RHEL situation here, sounds like Conservancy thinks that RedHat are mostly "probably not violating the GPL": https://sfconservancy.org/blo
by pabs3 1y ago
Some analysis of the RHEL situation here, sounds like Conservancy thinks that RedHat are mostly "probably not violating the GPL":
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis...
I think RedHat's theory is that the GPL doesn't entitle you to updates or support, so restricting them can't be considered an additional GPL restriction.
You could say that without the updates, RHEL is not fit for purpose, and therefore you should be entitled to them. Sounds like a complicated legal argument to have though.
I agree that RedHat are certainly not ethical actors in the FOSS community though.
- hedora 1y agoMoney talks, I guess. Two of those companies are bad actors in this space (google, with the android rug pull, and user abusing software built on open source, and aws, the repeat open source business killer): https://sfconservancy.org/sponsors/ https://sfconservancy.org/sponsors/
- pabs3 1y agoConsidering who Conservancy are, that is very unlikely. They are the main organisation doing GPL compliance work these days. Everyone else either opposes enforcement, or doesn't have the resources to do it, or does it but doesn't talk about it. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/