[tpush]

I don't see how that is equivalent to what Red Hat is doing. They never restrict your freedom 4 with their EULA. Only availability of future binaries. All already received binaries have their licenses intact and unrestricted, even if you break the EULA.

[Semaphor]

To clarify, you think a license saying "You can exercise freedom 4, but only if you never use any updated version of this software again" is just as free and GPL compatible?

[tpush]

No, I'm saying your formulation doesn't match Red Hat's EULA.

[Semaphor]

How? You just said it does. Assume I’m dumb and explain to me the difference, please.

[tpush]

No, I didn't. I'm not sure where you get that from?

Anyway, Red Hat's EULA doesn't restrict freedom 4. You asserted an alternative formulation where it does infringe to be equivalent.

I reject that equivalence assertion. Does that make it clear?

[Semaphor]

What I don’t get is the difference between

> They never restrict your freedom 4 with their EULA. Only availability of future binaries. All already received binaries have their licenses intact and unrestricted, even if you break the EULA.

And

> You can exercise freedom 4, but only if you never use any updated version of this software again

To me those seem 100% equivalent in what they do, I’m asking you to explain the difference which is obvious to you, but not to me.

I never say already received binaries have their licence violated. I actually never ever said the licence is violated at all, that was in my premise before the IANAL part.

[tpush]

Your version rescinds freedom 4 upon using an updated version. Red Hat's EULA doesn't do that.