[tpush]

Red Hat's EULA does not violate the GPL and what Oracle does is obviously wrong, it's parasitic and in the long term will kill RHEL (and thus also Oracle's version).

[pjmlp]

Big corps don't care one second about what HN thinks.

It is business as usual with any of them.

[JonChesterfield]

The violation is that the red hat distro is a derived work of GPL code whose source is not available.

[tpush]

Red Hat supplies the source to everyone their distributing the binaries to, no violation here.

[JonChesterfield]

Ah I see. I don't have the binaries so I can't have the source either. That's the part I was missing. Cheers

[fredski42]

You can have the sources. Centos Stream.

[paulryanrogers]

Yet it's not bug for bug compatible because it's now upstream of RHEL. For things like drivers you want compatibility

[housemusicfan]

I don't think you understand how the GPL works. Merely creating a derived work does not mean you must make source available publicly (a la AGPL).

[dzsekijo]

That's true but you must give the source to your customer and they should be free to redistribute.

[housemusicfan]

This is correct, and the customer has full rights to redistribute. But the original customer may be limited to paying Red Hat customers only and still remain in full compliance.

[fredski42]

And they are! However Red Hat is then free to terminate their business relation with you.