[quags]

The issue here is the GPL and what does it provide, freedom wise , for a system that is built of other contributors who also released their work under the GPL. It is a bit funny to me that red hat wants to kill off clones of their os and plenty of people think this is ok and seeing it as freeloading because red hat gives back which I would say they may be required based on the GPL and their business model. Could the Linux foundation move to subscription base and charge red hat based on they also give back and suddenly require subscriptions? This though isn’t the first time I have seen the same story so I am less worried. I remember red hat initially moving to their enterprise release and there was quite a few months of unknown what people would do after rh9 - I suspect this will also work itself out. If red hat wants to be more closed source they should build off of FreeBSD or something that can be less opened.

[neverartful]

Genuine question (I'm not intimately familiar with all the terms of the GPL) -- does the GPL require you to release the source code to anyone and everyone (even non-customers)?

[Stranger43]

No but it gives every customer the right to redistribute the sourcecode to software they bought if that code is covered by the GPL under the same terms as RedHat got from their upstream.

It looks like RedHat might be trying to avoid that clause by threatening to stop selling any software to people who might use that part of the GPL.

[neverartful]

I had missed this part earlier. Thanks for clarifying. It certainly changes the picture.