I admit I know nothing about what programs RedHat has contributed to, or what their plans are. I am only familiar with the GPL in general (I use arch, btw). So I tried to have Bing introduce me to the situation. The conversation got weird and maybe manipulative by Bing.
Can you explain to me why Bing is right and I am wrong?
It sounds like a brazen GPL violation. And if RedHat is allowed to deny a core feature of the GPL, the ability to redistribute, it will completely destroy the ability of any author to specify any license other than MIT. Perhaps Microsoft has that goal and forced Bing to support it.
It’s simple: they can redistribute it since it’s GPL, but if they do so, they break their business contract with RedHat, so they’re not customers anymore and can’t see the source code in the future.
GPL doesn’t mean that they must give the code to everyone, only that you have those rights as long as you have the software. So RedHat is not forced to have everyone as a customer, and according to them, distributing the code kicks you out.
They can still re-distribute the current source they have, but will not have access to future source code.
That is just denying redistribution with extra steps.
The point is that it does not violate the GPL.
If you deny redistribution, you are violating GPL. Do you agree with that?
So the question is then, does telling someone to promise not to do something, and punishing them if they do, violate there right to it?
This has the best explanation I’ve seen: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/
In particular, see the section “What Exactly Is the RHEL Business Model?”.
Or, if you want a short sentence to read only:
Whether that analysis is correct is a matter of intense debate, and likely only a court case that disputed this particular issue would yield a definitive answer on whether that disagreeable behavior is permitted (or not) under the GPL agreements.
I agree that all that can be done is sue them and lets the courts decide what the meaning of the GPL contract is.
I’m surprised at the link you gave since it is written by someone who agrees with my take, not yours and RedHat’s. And you stated clearly that RedHat absolutely is not violating the GPL, when that is actually just your opinion. The real tldr quote of that article is:
Debates continue, even today, in copyleft expert circles, whether this model itself violates GPL. There is, however, no doubt that this provision is not in the spirit of the GPL agreements.
Time for a GPL version 4: no extraneous agreements that nullify GPL terms.
My apologies if I seem too hostile. I firmly believe this is an existential issue for open source.
Username does not check out. This comment is inappropriately clueful.
Bing Chat is wrong. RHEL customers are legally allowed to share the code. What Red Had can do, and that has nothing to do with the GPL, is to end the contract with the customer who shared the code, thereby according to the GPL the customer also no longer has any right to access the code. The GPL only applies to software distribution, not contracts outside copyright law.
Edit: Red Hat is under no obligation to share non-copyleft code of which there is plenty in a Linux distribution but they do. Just look at Apple: Take plenty of FOSS code, give back only a fraction. It sucks but it’s legal. That’s also why Apple moved away from GPL software – can’t even bothered to ship BASH with macOS.
Yes. I just don’t know if it’s good to phrase it as “RHEL customers are legally allowed to share the code”, since as soon as they do it they won’t be allowed to be customers anymore lol (assuming Red Hat finds out)
I just don’t know if it’s good to phrase it as “RHEL customers are legally allowed to share the code”, since as soon as they do it they won’t be allowed to be customers anymore lol (assuming Red Hat finds out)
It’s not good to phrase it the way Bing Chat does and claim that it’s illegal either.
Btw, I find it funny how short the memory of many users is. Canonical claims copyright for all compiled binaries of non-GPL code (this includes OpenSSL, Xorg, and Wayland, among many others): https://ubuntu.com/legal/intellectual-property-policy (“Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries.”)
assuming Red Hat finds out
If RedHat is serious, they can put watermarking/stenography on the code they give you. Might not be proof in court, but enough to figure you are the leaker.
RedHat telling customers they can only enter agreement with them if they don’t choose to use their rights is the same thing as denying their rights. That’s a mighty fine hair to split, but I understand something like that could be argued in court. I still feel this completely neuters the whole point of the GPL. Authors who chose the GPL did so with the clear expectation that redistribution would be paid forward. I hope FSF chooses to go to court over this.
