What? GPL gives you the source if you receive the compiled form. When the source changes, you get those as well if you receive the compiled form.
Edited in if you receive the compiled form twice for clarity.
No, it does not say this. It says that if someone gets a piece of software, a binary for example, they must be given the source code it was built upon on request. It does not say that they have to receive all future source code updates even if they don't get future versions of the software.
Yes, if the consequence of excercising freedom is death(or imprisonment) then you aren't actually free, because killing (or imprisonment) stops you from excercising freedom. Red Hat terminating your license does not stop you from excercising the freedom the GPL gives you.
Anyway, Red Hat's EULA doesn't restrict freedom 4. You asserted an alternative formulation where it does infringe to be equivalent.
I reject that equivalence assertion. Does that make it clear?
> They never restrict your freedom 4 with their EULA. Only availability of future binaries. All already received binaries have their licenses intact and unrestricted, even if you break the EULA.
And
> You can exercise freedom 4, but only if you never use any updated version of this software again
To me those seem 100% equivalent in what they do, I’m asking you to explain the difference which is obvious to you, but not to me.
I never say already received binaries have their licence violated. I actually never ever said the licence is violated at all, that was in my premise before the IANAL part.
You can exercise freedom 4, but only if you never use any version of this software released after exercising that freedom.
Red Hat is doing the same thing, threatening to cut off the relationship if you decide to exercise one of the GPL's freedoms. Counts as a restriction in my book.
I thought this was clear, but as 2 misunderstood me already, I guess not.
GPL means I can’t distribute GPL software or its derivatives without its source. It doesn’t mean i have to distribute it to you for ever.
So if I don’t distribute the software to you, I don’t need to give you updates. Just like if I download some gpl code and change it locally, as long as I don’t distribute any part of it, i also don’t have to publish its sources.
Now the issue is not that, the issue is the spirit. GPL meantions “no further restrictions”, so is “exercising your GPL rights terminates your contract” a restriction? Technically you can still do what ever you want with that software , without any law suite etc, but I wouldn’t consider it free if there’s grave, even if non legal, consequences from doing so.
Edit : written before parent clarified his comment :)
I edited my comment as it’s apparently misunderstood by everyone.
Your final paragraph was exactly what I meant with going against the spirit of the GPL.
> Sure, not legally. Just de-facto. Or to use some reductio ad absurdum, you can exercise all your freedoms, but you will be killed for it, is not very free, is it?
It is just legalistic rambling and I've found it better to not engage this line of (non) reasoning.