I can’t believe how many people fundamentally misunderstand the spirit behind the GPL.
It helps to consider “the software” as a single snapshot in time, with the GPL’s intention that the consumer may make their own fixes, rebuild, and redistribute. Check.
Remember: “Free as in freedom, not free as in beer.” Selling open source software has always been explicitly allowed, as long as you make the source available to those who receive it. Check.
What the GPL does NOT provide is guaranteed access to maintenance and future versions of said software. Again, it applies to a snapshot, as delivered.
In a nutshell, the customer receives open source everything they FOR A PARTICULAR VERSION.
I see no problem — either in spirit or letter — in Redhat’s approach here.
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein.
Red Hat are arguing that they are free to punish customers from exercising their rights under the GPL, and that punishment does not constitute a “restriction”, even though its done specifically to discourage people from exercising those rights. Whether Red Hat have found a loophole is something for the courts to decide, but it’s clearly against the intention and spirit of the GPL.
However, I would continue to argue that if Redhat does not restrict parties’ rights to the source code they’ve been given, then they’ve satisfied the GPL.
It is my understanding (at least initially) that the GPL was meant to solidify the end user’s rights to the software they have, so that they’re not left with an unfixable binary executable.
And again, there are no rights granted by the GPL for FUTURE versions.
This is debatable. The GPL allow redistribution of a given version of the software without additional restriction. If the user receives that copy knowing in advance that redistribution will lead to retaliatory actions this can be treated as an additional restriction.
What if you bought an android phone, and could ask them for the source code to the Linux kernel on it, but if they caught you sharing it online, they would not allow your phone to update to the latest Android version?
The GPL requires that you do not put additional limits on a user’s rights to redistribute.
Saying “you have the right, but we’ll cut ties” isn’t really in keeping with the spirit of that.
I suspect, if it ever ended up in court, they’d agree yhat there’s no guarantee of access to future versions, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a shitty and cynical take that flies against what FOSS has traditionally stood for.
We can agree to disagree. “The Software” was delivered, source included. And you as end consumer are free to redistribute and maintain as you wish.
However, I cannot see any contract law judgement that would force continuation of a subscription model on the vendor (in perpetuity!) if they do not wish to remain under contract.
Ok, yes as far as I understand they are not breaking the GPL, but it’s still a d**k move as it leaves downsteam projects/distros in a mess of a situation. While technically allowed, I’m with Jeff on this one.
It might come down to what is a restriction maybe. Support is not part of the GPL, so putting a restriction to close a users account might not be a violation, but it very well could be a violation.
I can’t believe how many people fundamentally misunderstand the spirit behind the GPL.
It helps to consider “the software” as a single snapshot in time, with the GPL’s intention that the consumer may make their own fixes, rebuild, and redistribute. Check.
Remember: “Free as in freedom, not free as in beer.” Selling open source software has always been explicitly allowed, as long as you make the source available to those who receive it. Check.
What the GPL does NOT provide is guaranteed access to maintenance and future versions of said software. Again, it applies to a snapshot, as delivered.
In a nutshell, the customer receives open source everything they FOR A PARTICULAR VERSION.
I see no problem — either in spirit or letter — in Redhat’s approach here.
The problem is that the GPL states:
Red Hat are arguing that they are free to punish customers from exercising their rights under the GPL, and that punishment does not constitute a “restriction”, even though its done specifically to discourage people from exercising those rights. Whether Red Hat have found a loophole is something for the courts to decide, but it’s clearly against the intention and spirit of the GPL.
That’s a fair point, and worthy of deliberation.
However, I would continue to argue that if Redhat does not restrict parties’ rights to the source code they’ve been given, then they’ve satisfied the GPL.
It is my understanding (at least initially) that the GPL was meant to solidify the end user’s rights to the software they have, so that they’re not left with an unfixable binary executable.
And again, there are no rights granted by the GPL for FUTURE versions.
This is debatable. The GPL allow redistribution of a given version of the software without additional restriction. If the user receives that copy knowing in advance that redistribution will lead to retaliatory actions this can be treated as an additional restriction.
What if you bought an android phone, and could ask them for the source code to the Linux kernel on it, but if they caught you sharing it online, they would not allow your phone to update to the latest Android version?
The GPL requires that you do not put additional limits on a user’s rights to redistribute.
Saying “you have the right, but we’ll cut ties” isn’t really in keeping with the spirit of that.
I suspect, if it ever ended up in court, they’d agree yhat there’s no guarantee of access to future versions, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a shitty and cynical take that flies against what FOSS has traditionally stood for.
We can agree to disagree. “The Software” was delivered, source included. And you as end consumer are free to redistribute and maintain as you wish.
However, I cannot see any contract law judgement that would force continuation of a subscription model on the vendor (in perpetuity!) if they do not wish to remain under contract.
Ok, yes as far as I understand they are not breaking the GPL, but it’s still a d**k move as it leaves downsteam projects/distros in a mess of a situation. While technically allowed, I’m with Jeff on this one.
SFC thinks they are in violation of the GPL for what that’s worth.
It might come down to what is a restriction maybe. Support is not part of the GPL, so putting a restriction to close a users account might not be a violation, but it very well could be a violation.