31–40 of 47 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Afaik they are build from Centos Stream, just like RHEL. So nothing changes.
Then why is Red Hat doing this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In practice, yes. In theory, no, because the license strictly prohibits this. They'd get sued into oblivion or their first release.
Is this statement about the license fact or theory? If you deliver GPL software you have to release everything for redistribution.
https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/23/red_hat_centos_move/
It has been cited by, among others, Bradley Kuhn of the Software Freedom Conservancy, which is probably some of the highest praise I've received in my career to date.
I suggest reading that and then if you have further points or questions I will be happy to try to address them.
How does that work out with the GPL?
It works out ok. The GPL only requires Red Hat to provide the source code to its users, not the whole world. A license requiring publication on the internet would be considered non-free by the GNU project. It would also be rejected by Debian because it would fail the Desert Island test [1]. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/DesertIslandTest
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this statement about the license fact or theory? If you deliver GPL software you have to release everything for redistribution.
I covered my take on the situation at length, here: https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/23/red_hat_centos_move/ It has been cited by, among others, Bradley Kuhn of the Software Freedom Conservancy, which is probably some of the highest praise I've received in my career to date. I suggest reading that and then if you have further points or questions I will be happy to try to address them.
> customers [...] are under the terms of a contract, which overrides the GPL license of the code itself
Do you have a source for this claim? Why would the contract be legally stronger than the license?
GPL prohibits further restrictions on rights of the code recipient. Contractual terms are sometimes found unlawful/invalid by courts. I guess this question can really be resolved only by a court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I covered my take on the situation at length, here: https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/23/red_hat_centos_move/ It has been cited by, among others, Bradley Kuhn of the Software Freedom Conservancy, which is probably some of the highest praise I've received in my career to date. I suggest reading that and then if you have further points or questions I will be happy to try to address them.
You wrote > customers [...] are under the terms of a contract, which overrides the GPL license of the code itself Do you have a source for this claim? Why would the contract be legally stronger than the license? GPL prohibits further restrictions on rights of the code recipient. Contractual terms are sometimes found unlawful/invalid by courts. I guess this question can really be resolved only by a court.
If you wish to falsify my summary, then please do. I will be happy to write a correction. I could well have this wrong, yes.
If you feel this is wrong, then by all means, please provide some links and some evidence that it isn't the case.
IANAL and I do not play one on line. I just report. That is what reporters do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You wrote > customers [...] are under the terms of a contract, which overrides the GPL license of the code itself Do you have a source for this claim? Why would the contract be legally stronger than the license? GPL prohibits further restrictions on rights of the code recipient. Contractual terms are sometimes found unlawful/invalid by courts. I guess this question can really be resolved only by a court.
I was merely reporting what multiple others have said. If you wish to falsify my summary, then please do. I will be happy to write a correction. I could well have this wrong, yes. If you feel this is wrong, then by all means, please provide some links and some evidence that it isn't the case. IANAL and I do not play one on line. I just report. That is what reporters do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was merely reporting what multiple others have said. If you wish to falsify my summary, then please do. I will be happy to write a correction. I could well have this wrong, yes. If you feel this is wrong, then by all means, please provide some links and some evidence that it isn't the case. IANAL and I do not play one on line. I just report. That is what reporters do.
The contract doesn't override or contradict the GPL. The GPL doesn't cover rights to future versions of the software, only the versions customers receive. The contract termination is only for future versions of the software, not the versions customers receive. Also, the contract termination only happens when a customer gives someone who is not a customer the benefit of a subscription, it presumably wouldn't happen in…
I never said it did.
> The GPL doesn't cover rights to future versions of the software, only the versions customers receive.
Is anyone claiming this?
> The contract termination is only for future versions of the software, not the versions customers receive.
[[Citation needed]]
> Also, the contract termination only happens when a customer gives someone who is not a customer the benefit of a subscription
[[Citation needed]]
> it presumably wouldn't happen in other cases of exercising GPL rights.
Wouldn't it? Why not?
I am not arguing here. I am not saying you are wrong.
But these are significant specific statements. Can you provide evidence to support them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The contract doesn't override or contradict the GPL. The GPL doesn't cover rights to future versions of the software, only the versions customers receive. The contract termination is only for future versions of the software, not the versions customers receive. Also, the contract termination only happens when a customer gives someone who is not a customer the benefit of a subscription, it presumably wouldn't happen in…
> The contract doesn't override or contradict the GPL. I never said it did. > The GPL doesn't cover rights to future versions of the software, only the versions customers receive. Is anyone claiming this? > The contract termination is only for future versions of the software, not the versions customers receive. [[Citation needed]] > Also, the contract termination only happens when a customer gives someone who is not…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You wrote > customers [...] are under the terms of a contract, which overrides the GPL license of the code itself Do you have a source for this claim? Why would the contract be legally stronger than the license? GPL prohibits further restrictions on rights of the code recipient. Contractual terms are sometimes found unlawful/invalid by courts. I guess this question can really be resolved only by a court.
I was merely reporting what multiple others have said. If you wish to falsify my summary, then please do. I will be happy to write a correction. I could well have this wrong, yes. If you feel this is wrong, then by all means, please provide some links and some evidence that it isn't the case. IANAL and I do not play one on line. I just report. That is what reporters do.
> [...] as far as we can see, the Hat is acting perfectly in accordance with the terms of the GPL [...] The key point being is that to obtain those binaries, customers – as well as developers on free accounts – must agree to a license agreement and are under the terms of a contract, which overrides the GPL license of the code itself.
And later here:
> I covered my take on the situation at length [...] if you have further points or questions I will be happy to try to address them.
So, if you were just reporting, and you're happy to address questions, my question is - who did you report there? Who thinks contract overrides the license? Is it you yourself, is it the Register team, or somebody else?
I think that if using that claim at all, you should have reported that this claim is pretty controversial, there are many discussions on the internet that show this.