[Semaphor]

> Besides, FSF/GNU never said that you can't charge money for FOSS or that the source code must be published for anyone in some git repository.

The issue is, IMO, that they are saying they are terminating access to those publishing those sources. I don’t know if that goes against the letter of the GPL (IANAL), but I’d say it certainly goes against the spirit, they are denying their users a freedom to publish those sources, in a way.

[arghwhat]

The source code requirements of licenses like GPL is fulfilled if a person who receives a component can request e.g. a tarball of the source used to build the version of the component they had received, in such a state that you can reproduce the component.

Only those whom the component was distributed to can make this demand (although GPL lets this individual distribute the source afterwards), and only for that specific source revision.

[Semaphor]

Yes, I said nothing else.

[arghwhat]

Well, you implied differently and said it was not in the spirit of GPL.

The spirit of GPL is just compliance. It predates all modern source code distribution and collaboration systems and processes - a floppy disk sent by snail mail in response to a letter is likely the original intent.

[geerlingguy]

The spirit of GPL is the free software movement. Not raw compliance.

People who choose to attach GPL licenses to their code are certainly not lawyers and bureaucrats; they intend for a certain level of sharing to occur, else they'd have chosen BSD or MIT license.

[throwaway_9034]

So you think Red Hat's engineering efforts mean nothing because their product is licensed under many open source licenses?

That seems unfair when Rocky/CIQ explicitly uses Red Hat's 10-year support as an advertisement point and contribute nothing to that fair?

https://ciq.com/support/rocky-linux/

    With regular updates and a 10-year committed support lifecycle for each
    major release, Rocky Linux is ideal for use in enterprise environments. It
    is easy to migrate from CentOS and other RHEL-derived Linux distributions, 
    and it is secure and scalable.

Looking at this, what is the cost for CIQ here? What is the cost for Red Hat?

[geerlingguy]

That's a business concern, and it's one of the common issues those who charge for services and platforms on top of GPL-licensed software run into.

[arghwhat]

GPL is nothing but a legal tool, and it's entire purpose is encoded into its decades old verbose wall of text - unless you try to game the license with things like GPL shims, compliance with the text means compliance with the spirit: if the product recipient can get source code access, all is good.

FOSS is not GPL, GPL is not FOSS. Licenses are a very small part of what we consider the modern free software movement.

[sanxiyn]

No, I don't think it is against GPL, certainly not the letter, and not even the spirit. GPL gives you source. GPL does not give you stream of updates.

[Semaphor]

> GPL does not give you stream of updates.

What? GPL gives you the source if you receive the compiled form. When the source changes, you get those as well if you receive the compiled form.

Edited in if you receive the compiled form twice for clarity.

[thedriver]

>When the source changes, you get those as well.

No, it does not say this. It says that if someone gets a piece of software, a binary for example, they must be given the source code it was built upon on request. It does not say that they have to receive all future source code updates even if they don't get future versions of the software.

[Semaphor]

Yes, that is my point. They terminate your subscription (stopping you from receiving "the binary"), for re-publishing the source code which you are allowed to re-publish, but they don’t want you to.

[sanxiyn]

Terminating the subscription and preventing you from receiving the binary is Red Hat's prerogative. GPL does not say why Red Hat should not do so, and philosophically, it also does not contradict any software freedom.

[Semaphor]

Of course it is, legally. But they are threatening termination specifically to prevent people from exercising their freedom. How that can’t be seen as violating the spirit, I don’t know.

[sanxiyn]

No, 100% not. When you change the source, you are not obligated to give the change to anyone else.

[Semaphor]

GPL gives you the source if you receive the compiled form. When the source changes, you get those as well if you receive the compiled form.

I thought this was clear, but as 2 misunderstood me already, I guess not.

[tm-guimaraes]

No.

GPL means I can’t distribute GPL software or its derivatives without its source. It doesn’t mean i have to distribute it to you for ever.

So if I don’t distribute the software to you, I don’t need to give you updates. Just like if I download some gpl code and change it locally, as long as I don’t distribute any part of it, i also don’t have to publish its sources.

Now the issue is not that, the issue is the spirit. GPL meantions “no further restrictions”, so is “exercising your GPL rights terminates your contract” a restriction? Technically you can still do what ever you want with that software , without any law suite etc, but I wouldn’t consider it free if there’s grave, even if non legal, consequences from doing so.

Edit : written before parent clarified his comment :)

[Semaphor]

> It doesn’t mean i have to distribute it to you for ever.

I edited my comment as it’s apparently misunderstood by everyone.

Your final paragraph was exactly what I meant with going against the spirit of the GPL.

[sanxiyn]

Which spirit? The spirit of the GPL is four essential freedoms. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html You should be able to cite the number between 1 and 4.

[Semaphor]

Sure. 4