General > General Technical Chat
Red Hat paywall open source code
RoGeorge:
Huge Open Source Drama
Jeff Geerling
Not illegal, not nice either. From the video's author:
--- Quote ---Red Hat posted an official response. In it, they wrote:
"Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere."
Paraphrasing: those who use open source code and don't contribute back are "a real threat to open source companies everywhere"
I call these people: users.
--- End quote ---
Ed.Kloonk:
Yeah, it's a tough one. We've seen this happen on a smaller scale in the Linux com before. I've been wondering how long it would take Shuttleworth and the Arch folks to put a stop to, what is essentially, re-skinning.
MK14:
While it is free and open to do so, subscribing to this thread.
newbrain:
The GPL states that your customers must have access to the source code, and that's what Redhat is doing.
Up to this point, horrible move but respecting the letter of the license.
This still leves open the loophole of a subscriber redistributing the code, as explicitly allowed by the GPL (and encouraged, I would add).
What is very, very strange is that - according to Geerling, at least - they are threatening subscribers that redistribute the code with termination of their subscription.
Now, that seems to me a no-no for GPL (TINLA, IANAL), as it's burdening the code with additional licensing condition (Section 6 of GPLv2 and section 10 of GPLv3), meaning that Redhat would lose the right to distribution and use (but customers would not!).
It would take just one brave RH subscriber to test this in court(s).
EtA: for people like me who hate watching a video when a short article would do, here is J.Geerling post on his blog.
Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: newbrain on June 28, 2023, 09:36:17 am ---What is very, very strange is that - according to Geerling, at least - they are threatening subscribers that redistribute the code with termination of their subscription.
Now, that seems to me a no-no for GPL (TINLA, IANAL), as it's burdening the code with additional licensing condition (Section 6 of GPLv2 and section 10 of GPLv3), meaning that Redhat would lose the right to distribution and use (but customers would not!).
--- End quote ---
I fully agree: it is a violation of the GPL to try and stop customers from redistributing the source code.
There is nothing wrong in providing GPL'd sources to only paying customers, but placing any restrictions on top of GPL is a no-no, violating the GPL itself. And since Red Hat does not own the copyrights, they do seem to be in violation of the GPL.
Red Hat, violating GPL: whodathunkit? Looking their business model for the last ten years or so, I am actually not at all surprised.
--- Quote from: newbrain on June 28, 2023, 09:36:17 am ---It would take just one brave RH subscriber to test this in court(s).
--- End quote ---
I haven't checked if any of the already resolved GPL court cases in Europe have had any similar facets, but Red Hat being owned by IBM, I bet a court case in the USA would be necessary to resolve the issue for good.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version