[spamatica]

It has always been OK to restrict distribution of source to your customers.

From the GPL: "For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received."

The operative word being recipients.

Redhat may be the devil incarnate now that they apparently are a part of IBM... Though as far as this distribution change I don't see the problem.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

That's not the problem. The problem is that if you are a customer who receives the source code and then gives it to somebody else - an action with the GPL explicitly allows and says you can't restrict - then Red Hat will terminate your contract, which sure looks like a restriction to me.

[krupan]

It's crappy and evil, but it's a restriction on their service/support contract, not on the GPL code.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

I'm sure that's their claim, but I can also tell you that I wouldn't want to tell a judge that such retaliation wasn't intended to prevent (one might even say, limit) exercise of the GPL.

[traverseda]

If they put in their support contract "sure you can distribute the code but you'll have to pay a $10_000 for each line of code you distribute" then is that adding restrictions to the GPL code? Why is that OK but losing a very expensive support contract not? Does it get better if it's a month to month support contract?

To me this seems like a pretty clear cut case of adding restrictions to GPL code and risking getting those licenses taken away. It will be interesting to see if they face any real repercussions though.

[davisr]

> If they put in their support contract "sure you can distribute the code but you'll have to pay a $10_000 for each line of code you distribute" then is that adding restrictions to the GPL code?

That would be a restriction, in your example, but that is not what Red Hat is doing.

> Why is that OK but losing a very expensive support contract not? Does it get better if it's a month to month support contract?

Because in your first example, they are applying a restriction to copies of the software you have already received. That would be against the GPL, but that is NOT what Red Hat is doing.

Red Hat, if they were to terminate their support contract with you, does not affect any of the free software you have already received. You are still free to do with it as you like because there are no restrictions. But, Red Hat might not give you any _more_ software, and they don't have to because the transaction covered by the GPL for the software they already distributed to you was completely fulfilled.

Personally, I am doggone tired of people continually misrepresenting this point. Red Hat is simply __not__ violating the GPL.

[D7wEQ]

I think the SFC's take is the most interesting. This particular action is in no way a GPL violation. The health of RHEL repackagers directly indicates how at-risk Red Hat's customers are of the isolated GPL abuses that pre-IBM Red Hat has engaged in historically. Which makes

>Red Hat is simply __not__ violating the GPL.

a particularly interesting thought to unpack. Because while this event isn't a violation, the 'jury is out' on whether or not Red Hat's entire business model is compatible with the GPL in the first place. One thing that we do know is that Red Hat has displayed willingness to violate the GPL in the past.

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis...

[traverseda]

There's some subtlety between "$10_000 fine" and "have to spend $10_000 to change a bunch of infrastructure around" that's lost on me.