[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]

People are not prevented from exercising their freedom.

[Semaphor]

Sure, not legally. Just de-facto. Or to use some reductio ad absurdum, you can exercise all your freedoms, but you will be killed for it, is not very free, is it?

[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

[sanxiyn]

How is it against freedom 4? You can distribute modified versions to the end of the world. You just don't get access to future modifications made by Red Hat. You are not entitled, neither legally nor morally, to Red Hat's future modifications.

[Semaphor]

As I said in another comment [0]:

> Sure, not legally. Just de-facto. Or to use some reductio ad absurdum, you can exercise all your freedoms, but you will be killed for it, is not very free, is it?

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36583491