[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?

[tpush]

That comparison doesn't work in exactly the way that illustrates Red Hat's compliance with the GPL.

Yes, if the consequence of excercising freedom is death(or imprisonment) then you aren't actually free, because killing (or imprisonment) stops you from excercising freedom. Red Hat terminating your license does not stop you from excercising the freedom the GPL gives you.

[ztrgah]

Of course you are correct. The people you are discussing with and who pretend not to understand may be several of the numerous outsourced employees in the Czech Republic or Germany who are awake now.