Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dralley 2011 days ago
In what way is it "supposed to be against the GPL"?
2 comments
hvdijk 2011 days ago
See Bruce Perens's explanation: <https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-c...>. The short story: adding a penalty to an action that the GPL allows is a restriction of that action, and the GPL does not allow setting additional restrictions. This has not been tested in court, as far as I know.
link
andi999 2010 days ago
In the case of Red Hat it is not a penalty (as far as I understand) but a 'bonus' you can keep your support contract when obliging..
link
hvdijk 2010 days ago
My understanding is that Red Hat does allow redistribution so long as you do not infringe on its trademarks. Given that no version of the GPL ever granted trademark rights, this is not an additional restriction, so this is fine.
link
coldtea 2011 days ago
The same way something like "we can tell you, but then we'll have to kill you" would be against the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act.
link