[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

[geerlingguy]

It is useless trying to use either logic or reason here.

It is just legalistic rambling and I've found it better to not engage this line of (non) reasoning.