Free Software Foundation Speaks Up Against Red Hat Source Code Announcement 126
Generally, we don't agree with what Red Hat is doing. Whether it constitutes a violation of the GPL would require legal analysis and the FSF does not give legal advice. However, as the stewards of the GNU GPL we can speak how it is intended to be applied and Red Hat's approach is certainly contrary to the spirit of the GPL. This is unfortunate, because we would expect such flagship organizations to drive the movement forward.
When asked if the FSF would be willing to intervene on behalf of the community they had this to say:
As of today, we are not aware of any issue with Red Hat's new policy that we could pursue on legal grounds. However, if you do find a violation, please follow these instructions and send a report to license-violation@gnu.org.
Following is the full text of my original email to them and their response:
Subject: Statement about recent changes in source code distribution for Red Hat Enterprise Linux
Date: 2023-07-16 00:39:51
> Hi,
>
> I'm a user of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Rocky Linux and other Linux
> distributions in the RHEL ecosystem. I am also involved in the EL
> (Enterprise Linux) community which is being affected by the statements
> and changes in policy made by Red Hat at
> https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-stream and
> https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-source-
> response-gitcentosorg-changes
> (note there are many many more links and posts about this issue which
> I
> believe you are likely already aware of). While a few of these
> questions are answered more directly by the license FAQ some of them
> are
> not and there are a not insignificant number of people who would very
> much appreciate a public statement from the FSF that answers these
> questions directly.
>
> Can you please comment or release a statement about the Free Software
> Foundation's position on this issue? Specifically:
>
Thank you for writing in with your questions. My apologies for the delay, but we are a small team with limited resources and can be challenging keeping up with all the emails we receive.
Generally, we don't agree with what Red Hat is doing. Whether it constitutes a violation of the GPL would require legal analysis and the FSF does not give legal advice. However, as the stewards of the GNU GPL we can speak how it is intended to be applied and Red Hat's approach is certainly contrary to the spirit of the GPL. This is unfortunate, because we would expect such flagship organizations to drive the movement forward.
> Is Red Hat's removal of sources from git.centos.org a violation of the
> GPL and various other Free Software licenses for the various programs
> distributed under RHEL?
>
> Is Red Hat's distribution of source RPMs to their customers under
> their
> subscriber agreement sufficient to satisfy the above mentioned
> licenses?
>
> Is it a violation if Red Hat terminates a subscription early because
> their customer exercised their rights under the GPL and other Free
> Software licenses to redistribute the RHEL sources or create
> derivative
> works from them?
>
> Is it a violation if Red Hat refuses to renew a subscription that has
> expired because a customer exercised their rights to redistribute or
> create derivative works?
>
> A number of the programs distributed with RHEL are copyrighted by the
> FSF, some examples being bash, emacs, GNU core utilities, gcc, gnupg
> and
> glibc. Given that the FSF has standing to act in this matter would
> the
> FSF be willing to intervene on behalf of the community in order to get
> Red Hat to correct any of the above issues?
>
As of today, we are not aware of any issue with Red Hat's new policy that we could pursue on legal grounds. However, if you do find a violation, please [follow these instructions][0] and send a report to <license-violation@gnu.org>.
[0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
If you are interested in something more specific on this, the Software Freedom Conservancy [published an article about the RHEL][1] situation and hosted a [panel at their conference in 2023][2]. These cover the situation fairly thoroughly.
[1]: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/
[2]: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jul/19/rhel-panel-fossy-2023/
So... (Score:2, Funny)
Don't wear a Red Hat
(people may think you are a MAGAt)
Re: (Score:2)
IBM, UBM, we all BM, while wearing a red hat.
RTFGPL (Score:5, Informative)
Just read the fucking GPL you freetard. It clearly says that distributors like Red Hat are obligated to provide the source to the recipient of the (purchased) binary. They can even make the source dstribution available only by request of the recipient of the binary.
No where does the GPL say that source must be freely distributed to everyone and his dog.
RTFGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/g... [gnu.org]
It's not long and it's not hard.
Re:RTFGPL (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly,
A contract is a contract. If you don't like how the arrangement worked out, make a different contract for next time.
Trying to bully people with lawsuits that realistically should not win is no less shitty behavior than whatever you are probably on about. Don't throw good efforts after bad.
That said GPLv2 does not address the modern ecosystem. It does not deal with Tivio-ization, it does not deal with PAAS/SAAS providers enriching themselves off the libre contributions of the community while simultaneously locking users in, and it does not require as the parent points out for someone using to give just anyone the source, only people they have sold binaries to and even then it does not have to be free, they can charge their distribution costs.
If any of that is a problem for you, well GPLv2 isnt the license you should be use in 2025.
Re: (Score:3)
"That said GPLv2 does not address the modern ecosystem."
Sure it does.
"It does not deal with Tivio-ization, it does not deal with PAAS/SAAS providers..."
Sure it does, it allows those things...as open source licenses intend.
"...enriching themselves off the libre contributions of the community while simultaneously locking users in..."
The problem here is clearly with the concept of "deal with".
"...it does not require as the parent points out for someone using to give just anyone the source, only people they hav
Re:RTFGPL (Score:5, Insightful)
It allows those things to the extent it is a loophole that they did not anticipate at the time the GPL was authored. If it was "intended" then the FSF wouldn't have created GPLv3 to eliminate it. The intent or spirit of the GPL is that users of software get access to the source code of that software. The fact that you can weasel around it is a bug, not a feature, but a contract is a contract.
Re:RTFGPL (Score:4, Informative)
I agree that this is not what FSF intended, but it's clearly a tenet of open software. FSF doesn't own words like "open", and they do not get to be the authoritative source of their definition, and to most people the concept of "openness" is completely incompatible with the "you're either with us or you are against us" spirit of GPL version whatever.
No one gets to be the authoritative source of the definition of words like "open", or even phrases like "open source" whether they lied about inventing them or not.
When the phrase "open source" was invented in the 1980s, it meant one and only one thing; You got to see the sources, and maybe use them. It did not mean you could redistribute them to others at all.
The GPL is there to protect freedom of users. Its purpose is to ensure that you can use the code. This was needed because open source did not guarantee that. That is literally the whole reason the GPL exists.
Re: (Score:3)
" it does not deal with PAAS/SAAS providers enriching themselves off the libre contributions of the community while simultaneously locking users in,"
GPLv2 does not address the behavior or agreements between vendors and users, beyond asserting users' being entitled to the source code.
Since your point seemed to be that the GPLKLv2 ought to compel software providers to treat their users in some moral or ethical manner, I wonder how that fits into a licensing scheme that defines how source code is shared and w
Re: RTFGPL (Score:2)
Re:RTFGPL (Score:5, Informative)
That part was pretty old news. The more recent change in policy is that Red Hat will cancel your support contact of you redistribute the GPL'ed code from RHEL.
The FSF's message between the lines here is that this violate the Spirit but not the letter of the GPL.
Re:RTFGPL (Score:4, Interesting)
Obligatory question: What if you redistribute their code anonymously?
Re: (Score:3)
Then you better hope that they did not add any markings to the source code that identify you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This was also pretty old news, like 2 years ago this happened, and the FSF statement was also 2 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
The change from Red Hat is two years old. This statement from the FSF is new.
Re:RTFGPL (Score:5, Informative)
No where does the GPL say that source must be freely distributed to everyone and his dog.
Thank you for proving that you do not understand the argument. That always makes these discussions simpler.
No one has argued that RedHat should be obligated to distribute the sources to everyone. The argument is that prohibiting those to whom they did distribute them from redistributing them to others is violation of the contract of the GPL, and that the remedy is for RedHat to cease distribution of both binaries and sources until such a time as they stop doing that.
If you were able to read the GPL (Someone once said "It's not long and it's not hard") you could read this part, emphasis mine:
I know exactly why so many people want to ignore article 10 of the GPL, and it is that they have malicious intent towards non-compliance. The GPL in very simple language even you should be able to understand prohibits the contract restrictions IBM/RedHat has placed on redistribution of GPL-licensed works which make up RedHat Linux.
Re: (Score:3)
The argument is that prohibiting those to whom they did distribute them from redistributing them to others is violation of the contract of the GPL
RedHat is not prohibiting that. Your rights under the GPL remain intact, you can exercise them at will, and you can do so in perpetuity. RedHat is saying that if you become a de facto competitor to them, they will honor their obligations under the GPL but will not provide you with any additional binaries (that would entitle you to future source) in the future. This does not violate the GPL.
Re: (Score:3)
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License"
Any reasonable person can understand that termination of a contract if you exercise rights is obviously a restriction [thefreedictionary.com] ("any limitation on activity, by statute, regulation or contract provision") of the exercise of those rights, as it's assigning a penalty to that exercise, in this case by contract provision.
You may exercise your option to be reasonable at any time, sir.
Re: (Score:3)
Your rights are not restricted. You may exercise them at any time in perpetuity. The license does not grant you the right to have an ongoing relationship with anyone, nor does it compel anyone to have an ongoing relationship with you. The refusal to grant you such a relationship is not a "restriction" upon your rights under the license.
You may disagree with this analysis, but the FSF does not appear to.
Re:RTFGPL (Score:4, Informative)
You may disagree with this analysis, but the FSF does not appear to.
That, of course, is not what they said.
Here's what they actually did say:
What you think that means: "RedHat did nothing illegal"
What it actually means: "There is no victory for us in court against IBM so far"
Unless you have an absolutely cut and dried legal situation which does not require a lot of back and forth, there is no point in going to court unless you are the bigger, richer party. Your analysis depends on an extremely naive view of the American legal system.
Although it is really not important to the discussion, let's also take a look at what else they said:
As "the FSF does not give legal advice" they cannot say "this is a violation of the terms of the GPL". They made the strongest statement they could without risking legal action when they stated "as the stewards of the GNU GPL we can speak how it is intended to be applied and Red Hat's approach is certainly contrary to the spirit of the GPL".
Before you attempt to suggest that the spirit of a contract doesn't matter, please read up on good faith [lawshelf.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that what RedHat is doing is almost certainly against the spirit of what RMS had in mind when he created the GPL. Unfortunately, that does not change that RedHat is living up to its obligations under the license.
Re: (Score:2)
See last sentence of my prior comment.
Re: (Score:2)
This is more than just what RMS had in mind when he created the GPL a long time ago. The FSF owns the copyright of a not-insignificant amount of software that is redistributed by Red Hat in their RHEL distribution. They intentionally license their software under the GPL which they themselves maintain and are fully aware of the intent of what that license is supposed to mean. When the FSF says that what Red Hat is doing goes against the spirit of the GPL that is a very strong statement from them and they
Re: (Score:2)
I think what their statement means is you would have to convince a judge that the interpretation of clause 10 means the GPL can force a continuance of a relationship.
I'm not a lawyer, but that clause seems like it is meant to give the end user the right to distribute the software, without facing any legal action. No copyright lawsuits, no patent lawsuits.
It doesn't infringe on the distributors rights to choose who they distribute to.
It doesn't force someone to give you their future binaries.
It doesn't force
Re: (Score:2)
I think what their statement means is you would have to convince a judge that the interpretation of clause 10 means the GPL can force a continuance of a relationship.
No, that's not true at all. Nobody has to continue anything. There is a remedy spelled out in the GPL if you don't want to follow it. You know what that is, right?
when they say "we are not aware of any issue with Red Hat's new policy that we could pursue on legal grounds" it really means they have no legal argument.
Sigh. Again, quietly, for the people willing to listen: What they are saying is that they do not have a case they think they can win. That is not even remotely close to the same thing as no legal argument. The legal landscape is lumpy.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally speaking I would agree with you up until a refusal to distribute is taken as a penalizing action against someone who chooses to exercise their rights under the GPL. As soon as that happens then this changes from Red Hat choosing who they do business with to Red Hat violating the provisions of their own right to redistribute certain software under the GPL and they can loose that right if they persist.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why the statement from the FSF is so important, they actually own the copyrights to a very large portion of software that is redistributed by Red Hat, including, but not limited to:
* The bash shell. ...this list just goes on and on. The FSF *has* standing to bring litigation against Red Hat for this, and as such their opinion on what Red Hat is doing is *very* relevant.
* glibc.
* the gcc and g++ compilers.
* emacs
* Gnome
Now whether they can win in court is, as you say, not a given, but they certainly
Re: (Score:2)
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License"
Any reasonable person can understand that termination of a contract if you exercise rights is obviously a restriction [thefreedictionary.com] ("any limitation on activity, by statute, regulation or contract provision") of the exercise of those rights, as it's assigning a penalty to that exercise, in this case by contract provision.
You may exercise your option to be reasonable at any time, sir.
Except they have not restricted your right to redistribute, which is all the GPL requires them to do; nowhere does the GPL require a company to continue support for anything distributed, or even provide support. While it may be against the spirit of the GPL, nothing they have done violates it. RedHat is not required to do business with any company it provides a copy of their software, and companies are free to enter into contracts with RH that stipulate the terms for providing support. Nothing prevents a
Re: (Score:2)
If RedHat immediately cancels the support contract in retaliation / doesn't allow access to the sources for the lifetime of the contract, that IS actually limiting the ability to redistribute
How? Are they going to sue you for copyright infringement?
The GPL only requires RedHat provide sources for the software they have distributed to you.
If you don't have the previous releases, they don't have to give you the sources for them.
If they provided sources at the time, they don't have to provide them again.
If you want them, they can charge you a distribution fee.
The options in section 3 are " one of the following" not "all of the following"
Your citation of "restriction" doesn't support your argument.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree that there is any difference between cancelling a current contract and refusing to renew one that is or will soon become expired. Either action, if taken as a punitive measure in retaliation for you exercising your rights under the GPL is against at least the spirit of the GPL and likely, though not tested yet in court, a violation of the GPL as well. My take is that it comes down to the reason for the cancellation or refusal to renew and this reasoning may be the difficult thing to prove in co
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of the legal results, it's very unlikely that it will matter f
Re: (Score:2)
Most RHEL subscribers have zero interest in exercising their GPL rights and just won't care.
If they are stupid enough to be short-sighted, then they won't care.
There is, of course, a high possibility of that.
The terms of the GPL are what made RedHat Linux possible in the first place. Their additional restraint, even though it is not spelled out in the terms of their other contract, is a de facto restriction on exercising the rights granted by the GPL and therefore conflicts. As long as they continue their policy of not renewing contracts with customers who exercise the rights conveyed by RedHat un
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand the RHEL market. The people who are buying RHEL support are companies that need to use a "supported" environment for whatever reason. (The validity of these reasons is a separate discussion). They choose RHEL because it's the cheapest commercially supported OS.
The cost of the OS is jack diddly shit compared to the TCO of the entire system. That is an ignorant argument at best.
They aren't philosophical about GPL.
For most of them that is true, because most deciders are dumbshits.
If RHEL is no longer the cheapest or doesn't continue to be a viable product, they'll move on to whatever else is cheap.
It will, it will happen because of their attack on the GPL, it will take a long time, and these same companies will cry "why didn't someone warn us" when we did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than insult me, why don't you offer up why you think people are buying RHEL when Ubuntu is free?
Have you used Ubuntu?
YOUR argument was that people use RedHat because it's cheapest. It was literally in the comment to which I replied. You just destroyed your own argument and you want me to explain how to you? Are you literally a bot?
Re: (Score:2)
I use Ubuntu for everything. We aren't discussing Ubuntu. We are discussing RHEL and the organizations that use it. My personal usage has nothing to do with this conversation. Seriously, nonsense ad hominem attacks don't add any value. Hopefully moderation takes care of it because I am always civil and you are way out of line.
I will repeat my statement for those who come along to moderate. Many (most) companies us
Re: (Score:2)
Did you forget to take your medication this morning?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you forget to take your medication this morning?
Did you forget how to read before discovering Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
I know the difference between a legal restriction and the entry in the English dictionary
Re: RTFGPL (Score:2)
Apparently you didn't note that I got the definition from a legal dictionary.
Want to prove further that you didn't actually read the thread for the audience? Be my guest.
Re: (Score:2)
You should have gone one step further in your reference to restriction and read the whole thing
https://legal-dictionary.thefr... [thefreedictionary.com] applies to property law as in "covenants, conditions and restrictions,"
These are legally enforceable things that restrict your rights.
There is no legal recourse for Redhat to restrict the rights given by the GPL. Terminating their support contract does not limit any right given by the GPL.
You sound like one of those people that think the right to freedom of speech means you can s
Re: (Score:2)
Terminating their support contract does not limit any right given by the GPL.
It's a further limitation on top of the GPL which is not permitted by the GPL, neither version 2 nor 3, as I have illustrated variously in this discussion. The remedy is to repair the fault or to cease distribution of the GPL-licensed works. Whether this ever goes to court at all, or is decided that way is besides the point of both the letter of the GPL and its intent, as they both state that this behavior is unacceptable.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's a limitation placed on the support agreement.
I can refuse to do business with anyone, for any reason, and it in no way restricts what anyone does with anything licensed under the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
That's certainly IBM's argument, executed in bad faith.
The only question is, why are you trying to help them with it? You hate the GPL that much? Show us on the doll where Linus touched you.
Re: (Score:3)
Your rights under the GPL remain intact, you can exercise them at will, and you can do so in perpetuity. RedHat is saying that if you become a de facto competitor to them
The problem is that RedHat is attaching a proviso to your GPL rights under the agreement necessary to obtain software and giving themself a legal remedy against you that involves revoking services you paid for should you choose to exercise the rights. It is a restriction in the same manner as coercion or extortion. Of course the practic
Re: (Score:3)
RH isnt violating that though. You are not being restricted from accessing or using any software they already sold you or from distributing it. They don't shut down your RHEL server, they don't terminate their current contract with you early, they decline to contract with your for new software and support.
It is not the same thing, and it unfair to suggest that it is. Yes in practical terms for many organizations that forces their hand. You are not going to run an out of support OS, and you are not goin
Re: (Score:3)
I know exactly why so many people want to ignore article 10 of the GPL, and it is that they have malicious intent towards non-compliance. The GPL in very simple language even you should be able to understand prohibits the contract restrictions IBM/RedHat has placed on redistribution of GPL-licensed works which make up RedHat Linux.
If that's the case, then why did the FSF say "However, if you do find a violation, please follow these instructions and send a report to license-violation@gnu.org"?
I'm woefully under-educated in these matters, so I'm not challenging you - I'm just trying to gain a better understanding.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks - that clears up a lot. It had never occurred to me that they would have to be very careful in what they said publicly; but now I see that it makes perfect sense.
I can't read the jstor document - I created an account but it appears that I have to pay to view it.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't read the jstor document - I created an account but it appears that I have to pay to view it.
I was just talking about the preview! That alone gives enough context to understand what an implacable foe IBM is. They have so many lawyers and clerks working for them they can flood the US government with too many documents to review.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't read the jstor document - I created an account but it appears that I have to pay to view it.
I was just talking about the preview! That alone gives enough context to understand what an implacable foe IBM is. They have so many lawyers and clerks working for them they can flood the US government with too many documents to review.
Thanks. My first action when I looked at the preview was to confirm the date, because I hadn't realized that big corporations outgunning the government by such a wide margin was a 'thing' that long ago. So I should have gotten the point you were making - my bad for that 'whoosh' moment...
Re: (Score:2)
I am afraid you do not understand. There are no furher restrictions placed on your right to redistribute the sources. You can freely do it. It's just that it means Redhat will terminate their customer relationship with you. Which means they no longer have to offer you binaries. Which means they no longer have to offer your sources either.
It's devilishly clever legalese. Stupid and annoying yes, but also devilishly clever.
Re: RTFGPL (Score:2)
in very simple language even you should be able to understand
But you're already living proof that not everybody can understand simple language.
Re: (Score:2)
But you're already living proof that not everybody can understand simple language.
That's true. I put things into simple language so that they should be able to understand them, and then they fail to do so. Proof!
Now run along and bother someone else, you're not very good at it on any level and I demand a higher class of troll.
Re: (Score:2)
But there is a side-contract that says if you distribute the source code, as is your right under the GPL, they won't renew your contract to receive updated copies of the binaries. That bit is sailing pretty close to the wind in terms of compliance with the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
But the question is when a copyright license and a contact contradict each other which has precedent? In other words of I exercise my rights under the GPL but doing so violates my contract with Red Hat, which law is supreme? Copyright or contract law? Can a contract forbid you legally from following copyright law?
Re: (Score:2)
They're both contract issues.
The GPL is a contract to give you rights under copyright law.
If you violate the GPL, you are given no rights.
If you violate the Redhat contract, presumably they can't terminate it. I don't know specifically, I haven't read it.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of legal contention here is that the GPL allows anyone whom one does share the source code with to indeed distribute it to his friend for whatever fee, including nothing, that he might desire.
From what I understand, Red Hat, and GrSecurity actually executed contracts with their clients that say that they can't become customers any more if they do that or lose support or whatever. As in, they can share it, but there are consequences. The legal issue is whether this condition constitutions a prohibi
Slow news day? (Score:2, Insightful)
Redhat did a thing 2 years ago and to date no one has found a way to to stop them!
Yea, ok, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Redhat is just too hard to work with at this point. I no longer recommend any of the RHEL lineage for any new projects, although what I say has little bearing in a lot of cases, I'm still going to say it.
For the longest time, the Redhat docs online have been locked away behind a login, that somehow Googlebot seems to be able to get through, but I can't. Right now I'm working on a project that uses RHEL, all properly licensed and paid for, yet internal bureaucracy means I personally don't get a Redhat login,
Re: (Score:2)
My company used RHEL and Centos and migrated away fairly quickly. There are still a few legacy machines hanging out, but when it's time to replace them they won't be RHEL. It could be harder if you were dependant on third party software that only supports RHEL, but for us it was just a matter of making a decision on a new distro for the linux team to support, doing some testing/recompiles, and updating some deployment tooling.
I figure the group that lost the most out of RedHat's decision wasn't the open sou
Re: (Score:2)
I was always a big CentOS guy when it came to running Linux based services.
I made the mistake of sticking with CentOS when RH made it part of their development lifecycle.
It's a white-knuckle experience every time I have to update those servers now. It has already been disastrous once when all of the local network adapters got renamed for no apparent reason during an update.
Re: (Score:2)
This controversy has been swirling for nearly 20 years now. Along with RH's version of license audits, which they call contract audits to make sure you're not passing on the srpms. It's pretty slimy, frankly, but there you go. I don't see RH going anywhere anytime soon. The only thing that changed was RH decided to poke a stick in the eye of Rocky Linux (and possibly Oracle Linux which I'm fine with poking).
Meanwhile I think AlmaLinux has hit the exact right note for me. A stable platform that's compat
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed - it'll be a long time before the owners of my project move off RHEL. I'd say at least 5 years or more.
However, those same people are trying to hire "the best", and that won't be RHEL people for long. As soon as the alternative sources of information dry up or become out-dated, then they won't be able to hire an Ubuntu person and just have them "muddle along". As I say, the internal bureaucracy means that the lowly sysadmin trying to make something work won't get the support login, so will be stuck t
Re: (Score:2)
Have you actually read the GPL? (Score:5, Informative)
Is it a violation if Red Hat refuses to renew a subscription that has expired because a customer exercised their rights to redistribute or create derivative works?
It is not. Certainly, RedHat must supply you with the source for the binaries they distribute to you, but you have no right to future binaries or the source of those binaries they create and distribute to others. If they decide they do not want you as their customer anymore, there is not a damned thing you can do to force them to have an ongoing relationship with you. This should not be a hard concept to understand.
Re:Have you actually read the GPL? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the counter argument leans heavily upon the "without further restriction" part of the GPL. That your rights to GPL are "further restricted" by the subscriber agreement saying that any attempt to exercise your rights under the license shall terminate your subscriber agreement.
I don't think anyone wants to push that issue though, as if such broad licensing terms can be in effect, a lot more misbehavior would be possible than prevented. Forcing an ongoing forever customer relationship due to a license term seems too much.
Re: (Score:2)
But your rights are not restricted--you can exercise them at any time and you can continue to exercise them in perpetuity. You are suggesting that the "no further restrictions" clause covers future interactions between the parties, and that is not a reasonable reading of the license.
Forcing an ongoing forever customer relationship due to a license term seems too much.
If you believe the above is a bridge too far (and I agree) then how can an ongoing forever supplier relationship, which is what this is asking for, be any better?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
However, if refusing to honor an existing contract comes into play, that seems like an unreasonable restriction on your rights to use the software and, arguably, grounds for RHEL to lose rights to distribute the GPL product
The contract relates to Redhat's distribution of binaries to you. You have no right to those binaries in the first place, you only have the right to the source to those binaries provided to you, and you may make use of said source under the terms of the GPL. Redhat does not interfere with your rights under the license at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say that the rights are restricted, when stated point blank that while you can *technically* do something, you will be penalized with retaliatory behavior on another agreement. Now if your user agreement is terminated on other grounds, then so be it, but it seems as a retaliatory measure for distributing copyleft code it would be against the letter of the license. So you aren't promised an ongoing relationship no matter what, but if the grounds for that termination is GPL retaliation...
Note the GPL does
Re: (Score:2)
Depends entirely on your definition of "restriction"
From a legal standpoint, a restriction is something you can legally enforce. Like when you buy into an HOA, and the rules say no trees in your front yard. That's a restriction and the HOA can have a judge make you pay to remove it.
If they said "If you plant a tree in your front yard, you are no longer bound by any HOA rules", that's not a restriction, that's a get-out-of-jail-free card.
There is a difference between "If you do this otherwise legally permitt
Re: (Score:3)
I see you haven't read the GPL. Or, if you did, you didn't understand it.
I believe I have a solid understanding of GPL (at least v2... I have not delved deeply into v3 and have no desire to).
Try reading section 6 of the GPLv2,
Let's read it together:
Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
Redhat provides binaries. You request the source to those binaries. Redhat provides you with the source. They have satisfied their obligation under the GPL, period, full stop. Suggesting that not providing you future binaries constitutes a "further restriction" on your rights is not a reasonable reading of the license, because there is no requirement they provide y
Re: (Score:3)
I already explained why RedHat is enforcing "further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein" and "further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License" and provided a citation that it is in fact a "restriction" which you are not addressing.
Re: (Score:2)
Redhat provides binaries. You request the source to those binaries. Redhat provides you with the source. They have satisfied their obligation under the GPL, period, full stop.
Wrong. You also have the right to binaries of future versions pursuant to the totality of your agreements with Redhat. Your right to the future binaries comes from money you already paid to Redhat and your agreement with Redhat for software updates.
The issue is that terminating your rights under the other contract to update version
Re: (Score:3)
You also have the right to binaries of future versions pursuant to the totality of your agreements with Redhat. Your right to the future binaries comes from money you already paid to Redhat and your agreement with Redhat for software updates.
Well, presumably they have termination clauses in the contract that provided that right, and also restrict it. The GPL has nothing to do with that.
Terminating a support contract is not a restriction. It in no way restricts the rights given to you by the GPL. An injunction would be a restriction, if it were to legally prevent you from redistribution.
Redhat won't try to stop exercising any rights given to you by the GPL.
They do however, reserve their right to not have you as a customer and invoke any clause i
Answers here (Score:3)
>Is Red Hat's removal of sources from git.centos.org a violation of the
> GPL and various other Free Software licenses for the various programs
> distributed under RHEL?
No. But Red Hat must deliver the source code to anyone who purchased Red Hat's binary, and request it. That person can then share it with anyone.
> Is Red Hat's distribution of source RPMs to their customers under
> their
> subscriber agreement sufficient to satisfy the above mentioned
> licenses?
No. Even if I cancel my subscription, I still have the right to request the source code from Red Hat, and they have to deliver it.
> Is it a violation if Red Hat terminates a subscription early because
> their customer exercised their rights under the GPL and other Free
> Software licenses to redistribute the RHEL sources or create
> derivative
> works from them?
That's the most interesting one. Definitely a violation of the spirit of the GPL, but maybe not the letter.
But there is an easy way to avoid that. Just publish the source code anonymously. Red Hat won't know who it came from, so won't be able to cancel any subscription. I'd suggest a web repository called fuckredhat.com shall be reserved for this one.
> Is it a violation if Red Hat refuses to renew a subscription that has
> expired because a customer exercised their rights to redistribute or
> create derivative works?
Same. Just redistribute anonymously if this is causing any problem.
Re: (Score:2)
For answers to the subscription topics, you need to read the terms and conditions of the subscriptions themselves and see in which circumstances RedHat have reserved the right to terminate your subscription. If they reserve it for any reason, then they can do this, but also everyone should think twice before they become a customer of RedHat.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is whether a license like GPL is able to impose restrictions on those terms and conditions on related. It's quite likely that, as written, the subscriber agreement lets them do whatever they want in terms of cancellation. The question is whether the copyleft suppliers license is compatible with retaliation over exercising rights in the license.
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite likely that, as written, the subscriber agreement lets them do whatever they want in terms of cancellation. The question is whether the copyleft suppliers license is compatible with retaliation over exercising rights in the license.
And, obviously, there's no way Red Hat would do this without having their attorneys answer that question, so they think the copyleft license doesn't preclude their subscriber agreement. And apparently the FSF agrees, as they said:
So, Red Hat found another loophole in the GPL, to accompany the well-known SaaS loophole. That there are loopholes shouldn't surprise anyone; it's actually rather amazing how well the GPL
Re: (Score:2)
That's the most interesting one. Definitely a violation of the spirit of the GPL, but maybe not the letter.
It is an obvious and blatant violation of article 6 of the GPLv2, or article 10 of the GPLv3. But nobody can afford to go toe to toe with IBM in court, which is proof in and of itself that they should be broken up. Unfortunately, we don't do that enough in general, and we never do it to defense contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not obvisous. See this article: https://sfconservancy.org/blog... [sfconservancy.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The article you cite there unequivocally says it was a violation, and that RedHat backed down when they planned to go to court to collect back license fees from someone who did distribute some of the relevant sources.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the most interesting one. Definitely a violation of the spirit of the GPL, but maybe not the letter.
It is an obvious and blatant violation of article 6 of the GPLv2
Is it?
The RHEL customers can receive the source, as required by (3)(a). Note that (3) requires that the distributor comply with only one of (a), (b) or (c), and RHEL is clearly doing (a), by providing the source for download through the same distribution channels they provide the binary.
As for (6), the RHEL customers do have a licence to redistribute the source. They can do that at no legal peril to themselves, and RH imposes no "further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted".
Re: Answers here (Score:2)
The FSF flatly did not say what you think they said.
Re: (Score:2)
"But Red Hat must deliver the source code to anyone who purchased Red Hat's binary"
Doesn't even seem free.
Re: (Score:2)
Just publish the source code anonymously. Red Hat won't know who it came from, so won't be able to cancel any subscription.
Red Hat could use a Canary Trap [wikipedia.org] to identify the source, if care isn't taken. Separately signing each RPM and keeping track of which signature is associated with each customer would do it, or if signatures are stripped, doing something like adding a number of spaces to the source files would create a unique fingerprint.
So, if anyone does try to re-publish anonymously, they should strip the signatures and take care to run a code reformatter on it first.
And since Red Hat's signatures will be stripped, anyo
Re: (Score:2)
While that is possible it would be expensive. The only things that are needed to make an abi compatible distro are the spec files and the patches. The original tarball can come from upstream. Patchs could be watermarked somehow. But they can also be examined for such things.
Re: (Score:2)
While that is possible it would be expensive.
Nah. It'd be the work of a couple engineers for a couple of months.
The only things that are needed to make an abi compatible distro are the spec files and the patches. The original tarball can come from upstream.
But there's nothing requiring RH to distribute that way. They probably do, because RPMs support that, but they don't have to.
It also occurs to me that if I were asked to do this, it wouldn't be hard to make sure that my watermarking efforts could survive reformatting.
If I were Purple Hat Enterprise Linux... (Score:2)
I'd start as soon as possible the (long and ardous) process to move as many components of the distro from copyleft FOSS to permisive FOSS. bash? zshell? BusyBox? ToyBox!
For RHEL 10 I would include them on the box and notify the change, for RHEL 11, I'd make them the default, with the copyleft stuff included in the box, by RHEL 12, the copyleft stuff is in the repos, but not OotB, and by RHEL 13, the copyleft stuff is nowhere to be found.
While not every single copyleft module of the distro will have a perm
Re: (Score:2)
I'd start as soon as possible the (long and ardous) process to move as many components of the distro from copyleft FOSS to permisive FOSS. bash? zshell? BusyBox? ToyBox!
The value proposition of a linux distribution, like the kernel itself, is that you don't have to do all the work.
Re: (Score:2)
FreeBSD is a "permissive" equivalent.
It is my daily driver, but it doesn't do everything that Linux can do, and I do also use Debian.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, they wouldn't even have to go that far. They'd only have to shut the door on non-copyleft content and they've pretty much already made it impossible to clone.
A quick review shows that a random RHEL I could find was only about 66% copyleft. So a full third of the distribution could close up as much as they like. It's already severe enough that you couldn't credibly claim to be a source based clone with so much missing.
Totally what I said it would be. (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL as it stands would certainly only allow source code to be given only to customers.
If you haven’t bought the product, then no source for you. The GPL allows it as you only get an offer for the source WITH the binary and have no right to that source under the GPL if you havnt got that binary. However, as I said at the time, ANYONE with that binary does have a right to that source code, so RedHat would have to give access to the source code if a customer gave a binary to someone else.
BUT, in giving that binary to someone else, that customer can be in breach of contract with RedHat thus losing their support and right to further updates. They still would be legally entitled to the source of the binaries they already have, but as they had been naughty and breached the contract, they have no rights to updates. "Off you go, go it alone" basically.
So the GPL is working just fine, as long as RedHat doesn’t prevent an owner of a binary access to the source code for that binary version, all is well. You want updates and new source code? Buy a contract.
This is how you can sell Free Software. It's just we are not used to it. The purpose of the GPL is to allow you to LEAVE said RedHat contract, with access to the source, and have it not hinder you. You can freely develop any of that code yourself, well any that is under a Free Software license as not everything in RedHat is under the GPL.
Anything that is bespoke by RedHat and not GPL'ed, or equivalent, well, you may be legally required to delete such programs and such programs are exactly what the FSF are fighting against.
So what they say about the "spirit" of the GPL, well yeah, we are all used to the free as in beer and Free as in freedom gravy trains, but we have to realise that they are not mandatory so are not always running.
Remember, it always has boiled down to:
If you receive a program under the GPL (or similar/compatible) license, you have a right to the source that made it.
You never had a right to updates given to paying customers, and they have no obligation to break contract terms with Red Hat to give you them either. I can add code to any GPL program I like and unless the original developer gets a copy of the resulting binary, I need not give them that new code at all. If I use it privately, or within my organisation, it's mine.
But if a binary was to be leaked...
Re: (Score:2)
But if a binary was to be leaked...
Relying on leaks probably isn't safest way to run an Enterprise OS. So people will keeping mostly paying for safety rather than a copycat. Their mission accomplished.
Re: (Score:2)
This is how you can sell Free Software.
No, this is willfully acting in bad faith, which very much is relevant in court.
How you can sell Free Software is with contract-directed development, and/or contract support.
Re:Totally what I said it would be. (Score:4, Interesting)
ANYONE with that binary does have a right to that source code, so Red Hat would have to give access to the source code if a customer gave a binary to someone else.
Not quite true. If a customer gave a binary to someone else, the customer would have to give access to the source code to that someone else. Red Hat has no obligation in this case. This is because Red Hat uses 3(a) to distribute sources, not 3(b) or 3(c).
Under 3(a) when you download the binary from Red Hat, you have the option of downloading the sources from the same site at the same time. Once you download the sources, or choose not to, Red Hat's GPL obligation is complete[*]. You don't get to point at Red Hat and say "get the sources from them, not me" nor do you get to wait a year and come back crying because you didn't download the sources when you had the chance.
[*] technically, Red Hat's obligation continues as long as they continue to offer the binaries to you, but once the offer of the binary is withdrawn, the offer of the sources is no longer required.
That's a "summary"? (Score:2)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
As they say, "Red Hat--is Old Hat" (Score:3)