[tinus_hn]

Isn’t it like all these alternative distributions have to do is buy one license for RHEL and get the sources RedHat uses?

[lproven]

In practice, yes.

In theory, no, because the license strictly prohibits this. They'd get sued into oblivion or their first release.

[tinus_hn]

Is this statement about the license fact or theory? If you deliver GPL software you have to release everything for redistribution.

[lproven]

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.

[effie]

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.

[lproven]

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.

[effie]

Wow, that is pretty defensive/offensive and dissonant with your post above. You wrote in your article:

> [...] 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.

[pabs3]

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 other cases of exercising GPL rights.