4 ms·

it should be clarified that red hat is not violating gpl license. they are free to repackage software, then sell it closed source, and only distribute the sourc

it should be clarified that red hat is not violating gpl license. they are free to repackage software, then sell it closed source, and only distribute the source to its paying customers. this use-case is explicitly endorsed by rms and generally follows the spirit of free software.

phkahler 3y ago
That is fine. The problem is redhat is allegedly making business agreements with their customers requiring no redistribution of the code. This is a direct violation of the GPL by denying one of the freedoms it guarantees.
- r9550684 3y ago
  I didn't realize that, cheers! but how does red hat structure their stuff? I know that gnu projects must surrender their copyright to gnu, in order to prevent future shenanigans. if red hat had their core infrastructure (package manager, package definitions, etc.) copyrighted to red hat, then they can change the license on future releases of red hat to make it restrictive. you're then free to release a gpl source of the packaged code and the red hat specific modifications, since they fall under gpl, but you can't release the scaffolding anymore that make up the rest of the red hat system. I'm not a lawyer, but I've seen this kind of trick pulled on gpl projects before, where version 2 is now bsd/proprietary, while gpl version 1 remains in public access. (edit: I'm reading the rest of the thread, and it seems there's some confusion about what exactly is in the new red hat contracts.)
  - dralley 3y ago
    Red Hat has never required copyright assignment in any of the projects they have started or came to maintain.
    - richardfontana 3y ago
      Only one historical exception: Cygwin, basically inertia from the Cygnus acquisition. Maybe more significantly, Red Hat has only made limited use of CLAs in the past and hasn't used any CLAs for many years now. It's basically corporate policy.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - atgreen 3y ago
        There was one other Cygnus-era one... libgcj, the gcj runtime library. However, Red Hat assigned copyright to the FSF in exchange for them adopting a more permissive license for the GNU Classpath project; one that was eventually selected by Sun when they open-sourced Java.
        richardfontana 3y ago
        Ah, that is slightly before my time:)
- wlindley 3y ago
  Isn't Red Hat's position, "You have the freedom to redistribute this code but if you do so, we will sever our relationship with you as a customer of ours, so you won't get any more code." Which might go against the intentions of the GPL but not its actual wording.
  - account42 3y ago
    I'm sure their lawyers have though out a good defense but it very much does sound like an additional restriction placed on the right to distribute the source. Hopefully Red-Hat will be proven wrong before more companies jump on this.
shrubble 3y ago
What is your interpretation of the following text from GPLv2 (I added link to the official text above): "2 b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
- r9550684 3y ago
  it's the recursive clause, that applies gplv2 to derivative works. the prescriptive part is "must cause … to be licensed", and nothing else. what is says is that paraphrasing "the work based on program must be licensed at no additional fee under similar terms as the original program". this part is self-contained and doesn't say anything about e.g. copy and distribution. the copy and distribution clause is only part 3, where you "may" copy and distribute the program (or its derivative work, as per part 2) provided that you either "accompany it with complete … source code" or some means to get the source code from you on demand. I can't claim this just from reading the license, because I'm not a lawyer, but in rms's reading and in Lessing's reading, the combination of part 1 and part 2 mean, paraphrasing, "if you make derivative work, compile it, and distributed it, you must also provide source code".
- schoen 3y ago
  That language is referring to copyright permissions (i.e. promising not to sue people for copyright infringement for using or distributing the software in accordance with the GPL). It doesn't refer to providing access. A trickier thing for Red Hat might be > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. One may argue about how to interpret that with regard to, for example, terminating a business relationship as a result. (I could see arguments on both sides.) Also, Red Hat's method for complying with section 3 could be a subtle issue, because one of the options for compliance requires promising to provide "any third party" with the source code upon request. I don't know whether Red Hat is using that option or a different option.
  - dogmatism 3y ago
    >One may argue about how to interpret that with regard to, for example, terminating a business relationship as a result I think there's been far too little focus on this, which is the crux of it. IMO (an IANAL) it seems pretty clear that even though this is not an explicit new license condition, it de facto does prevent redistribution: i.e. "you can do business with us, but only if you do not exercise one of your rights" in de facto limiting that right I would love to see this adjudicated. Is there a company that builds statically against RHEL and resells, or modifies RHEL as a paying customer and resells that could show material injury by this move?

phkahler 3y ago

That is fine. The problem is redhat is allegedly making business agreements with their customers requiring no redistribution of the code. This is a direct violation of the GPL by denying one of the freedoms it guarantees.

r9550684 3y ago
I didn't realize that, cheers! but how does red hat structure their stuff? I know that gnu projects must surrender their copyright to gnu, in order to prevent future shenanigans. if red hat had their core infrastructure (package manager, package definitions, etc.) copyrighted to red hat, then they can change the license on future releases of red hat to make it restrictive. you're then free to release a gpl source of the packaged code and the red hat specific modifications, since they fall under gpl, but you can't release the scaffolding anymore that make up the rest of the red hat system. I'm not a lawyer, but I've seen this kind of trick pulled on gpl projects before, where version 2 is now bsd/proprietary, while gpl version 1 remains in public access. (edit: I'm reading the rest of the thread, and it seems there's some confusion about what exactly is in the new red hat contracts.)
- dralley 3y ago
  Red Hat has never required copyright assignment in any of the projects they have started or came to maintain.
  - richardfontana 3y ago
    Only one historical exception: Cygwin, basically inertia from the Cygnus acquisition. Maybe more significantly, Red Hat has only made limited use of CLAs in the past and hasn't used any CLAs for many years now. It's basically corporate policy.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - atgreen 3y ago
      There was one other Cygnus-era one... libgcj, the gcj runtime library. However, Red Hat assigned copyright to the FSF in exchange for them adopting a more permissive license for the GNU Classpath project; one that was eventually selected by Sun when they open-sourced Java.
      - richardfontana 3y ago
        Ah, that is slightly before my time:)
wlindley 3y ago
Isn't Red Hat's position, "You have the freedom to redistribute this code but if you do so, we will sever our relationship with you as a customer of ours, so you won't get any more code." Which might go against the intentions of the GPL but not its actual wording.
- account42 3y ago
  I'm sure their lawyers have though out a good defense but it very much does sound like an additional restriction placed on the right to distribute the source. Hopefully Red-Hat will be proven wrong before more companies jump on this.

shrubble 3y ago

What is your interpretation of the following text from GPLv2 (I added link to the official text above): "2 b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."

r9550684 3y ago
it's the recursive clause, that applies gplv2 to derivative works. the prescriptive part is "must cause … to be licensed", and nothing else. what is says is that paraphrasing "the work based on program must be licensed at no additional fee under similar terms as the original program". this part is self-contained and doesn't say anything about e.g. copy and distribution. the copy and distribution clause is only part 3, where you "may" copy and distribute the program (or its derivative work, as per part 2) provided that you either "accompany it with complete … source code" or some means to get the source code from you on demand. I can't claim this just from reading the license, because I'm not a lawyer, but in rms's reading and in Lessing's reading, the combination of part 1 and part 2 mean, paraphrasing, "if you make derivative work, compile it, and distributed it, you must also provide source code".
schoen 3y ago
That language is referring to copyright permissions (i.e. promising not to sue people for copyright infringement for using or distributing the software in accordance with the GPL). It doesn't refer to providing access. A trickier thing for Red Hat might be > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. One may argue about how to interpret that with regard to, for example, terminating a business relationship as a result. (I could see arguments on both sides.) Also, Red Hat's method for complying with section 3 could be a subtle issue, because one of the options for compliance requires promising to provide "any third party" with the source code upon request. I don't know whether Red Hat is using that option or a different option.
- dogmatism 3y ago
  >One may argue about how to interpret that with regard to, for example, terminating a business relationship as a result I think there's been far too little focus on this, which is the crux of it. IMO (an IANAL) it seems pretty clear that even though this is not an explicit new license condition, it de facto does prevent redistribution: i.e. "you can do business with us, but only if you do not exercise one of your rights" in de facto limiting that right I would love to see this adjudicated. Is there a company that builds statically against RHEL and resells, or modifies RHEL as a paying customer and resells that could show material injury by this move?