[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.

[Semaphor]

Okay, so you are saying you are just nitpicking? This is still the same in pretty much every way:

You can exercise freedom 4, but only if you never use any version of this software released after exercising that freedom.

[tpush]

I'm not nitpicking, what I've said is the difference between GPL compliance and not. This next version of yours is different to Red Hat's EULA in the same way.

[Semaphor]

Yes, you are. I repeatedly said it’s about the spirit, not about some lawyer compliance stuff. You either tell me how our versions differ for the user of the software effectively, or you don’t need to bother answering, I won’t.