That's a restriction on sharing...
It's a more restrictive license. Doesn't matter what the restriction is. It's a restriction.
It's a more restrictive license. Doesn't matter what the restriction is. It's a restriction.
The vendor can decide NOT to share the next version with you.
The GPL talks about your rights, etc, with regards to what you GET. Not guaranteeing any future updates, prices, etc.
I'm sure that if you got caught, Red Hat would "forget" with enough money. :)
> The vendor can decide NOT to share the next version with you [because you shared the previous verison].
Sounds a lot like a new restriction on sharing. The threat of future action if you share something under GPL is a restriction on sharing.
If someone is prevented from sharing GPL code because of some kind of contract, license or TOS how is that not a new restriction being placed on the GPL?
It isn't. Giving you a boot disc doesn't obligate me to make future versions available to you.
Red hat wants their fork to be different, I don't see why it should be.
GPL say what rights you have and what Red Hat can sue you for, not what Red Hat need to give you in the future.
You have the right to change and share the sources and Red Hat cannot sue you for that if you choose to do it.
GPL does not say anything about Red Hat giving you access or selling you new versions.
An example, lets say you buy whatever 1.0 under GPL from Red Hat, and they make the sources available.
GPL say that Red Hat cannot sue you for sharing the sources to whatever 1.0, but they will not sell you whatever 2.0 if you do so, and there is nothing in GPL require then to.
The restriction is not on GPL, is in your business relation with Red Hat going forward, and that does not break GPL.
1. An entity that that has been dealing with GPL software and the attendent licencing issues for decades fundamentally got it wrong.
2. Your understanding of the GPL is incorrect.
As written, yes, this is not a GPL violation, they're not directly stopping you from redistributing what you were given, they're just choosing to not do future business with you.
In practice, judges often really hate people trying to do cute end runs around the intent of things, particularly anything that's more than a handshake, like a license.
I would suspect they're betting heavily on nobody being big enough to be willing to try suing IBM-sized legal departments, and settling without losing the ability to argue this is valid if they're wrong.
Breaking the GPL, and triggering the revocation of Red Hat's license to distribute various key pieces of GPL code is a massive no-go.
I've also spent my share of time talking to lawyers about various parts of GPL compliance etc. I'm pretty confident Red Hat is in the right here.
Do I like it: No.
Do I think it is stupid: Yes.
Now, just because it isn't part of the same contract (since they haven't added some clauses to the GPL), doesn't mean it isn't part of the same distribution agreement, since it is part and parcel of the same distribution.
If the US government said "yes you have the right to free speech, but if you exercise it, then afterwards we will strip you of citizenship and deport you to Mexico" that would be considered infringement on the free speech statutes. Retaliation for invocation of the agreed upon licence terms effectively nullifies those terms, and should (IMO, IANAL) revoke RH's licence.
They can't and they aren't proposing to do that. Rather they can stop doing business with such users.
> You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
Whether or not this clause would be ruled valid in court is an open question, but the violation isn't. Unless you consider that “threatening customers to leave their business without the support they paid for” doesn't count as “imposing”, but that requires some mental gymnastic (what could this word even mean if not? Of course no company is going to use armed force to impose anything…)
If I commercialize GPL code and say in my TOS that you cannot redistribute the code <or something bad will happen>, then I'm adding a restriction to the code redistribution, and it doesn't matter what kind of “bad thing” it is, as the GPL says “any further restrictions”.
Come on, the TOS almost litterally say “you shall not re-distribute the code or we terminate you” and now you're arguing that the TOS isn't about GPL code? This is Olympic level gymnastic at play here.
If ibm(redhat) decides to not provide you an exactable artifact(perhaps they say they don't want to sell you a rhel licence), they don't have to provide the source that generated that artifact.
Its a stupid shitty way to behave but the gpl does not say you have to redistribute the source to every body(most people do because this is easier) only that you have to redistribute the source to people that get the binary.
They are restricting access to the RPM which is more than just code. The non-code bits are what is restricted.