[dxf]

No, you can redistribute it. RedHat can't stop you.

But you might only be able to do this once. Because what RedHat can do is cancel your contract, and stop you from using RedHat services, and you won't have access to future versions or updates.

[jonhohle]

It sound like RedHat has migrated back to a “purchase” model then. You pay once, get your software and do with it as you please and then they ask you kindly to not pay again, kind of like the old days. Sounds good to me.

As long as one subscriber is willing to leave their contract per release, downstream derivatives should have no end of supply for each release. This may not help with patches, but many of those would come from third parties to begin with.

[zugi]

This is the answer. What RedHat is doing is legal but sneaky. So we can be legal but sneaky too.

Start a consortium that creates a new LLC or non-profit organization with no ties back to the consortium. That new organization buys a license, and publishes the code until RedHat cuts them off. Start a new one and repeat.

Of course it could become a cat and mouse game, where RedHat starts denying customers it deems suspicious. They start demanding more info of their customers. But all that could be bad for business...

[smsm42]

Not a lawyer, but I suspect doing this with prior intent would be fraud (since you enter the contract with intent to violate it) and probably get you sued.

[zugi]

I don't think so, the whole point here is that the contract does not - and cannot - bar you from sharing the code. The GPL bars RedHat from imposing additional restrictions on your rights to the code.

But RedHat is under no obligation to make future sales to you and can drop you as a customer for any reason, including you exercising your legal right to share the code.

So they want to be legal but sneaky? Let the legal but sneaky games begin!

[smsm42]

Even easier - let's say I send you a bunch of GPL code and tell you I'll pay you 1000 dollars if you never send it to anybody else. Easy money right? If you still send the code, I can't sue you for license violation - GPL allows you to do that. But you certainly took $1000 and didn't do what I paid you for. It's not just legal but sneaky, it's a violation of our contract, despite the fact the license is not violated - two different things.

[smsm42]

The contract can not remove your legal rights, but can ask you to give them up in exchange for something. For example, I can not prohibit you from driving you own car, but if I rent it from you, and later you just take it back while my rental term still in effect, it would be a breach of contract, despite the car being legally yours. And if I learn that you never intended to let me drive the car, but still pretended to rent if out, then if would be fraud. Same, my employer can not prevent me from exercising my right you free speech, but some of it - eg disclosing trade secrets - may get me fired and sued for damages. Because by signing employment contract I agreed to give up exercise of some rights - like use if my time and some of my speech - in exchange for the salary. If I didn't I could speak of any secrets and they couldn't do a thing.

Contract is a meeting of minds honestly intending to perform. If you did not have the good faith intention to perform the contract, it's not just sneaky, it's fraudulent.

[theonemind]

If I understood what you mean, it doesn't sound like it works in any practical sense, because Red Hat wouldn't take you as a customer for release n + 1.

1. You purchase release N

2. You distribute the source code to release N.

3. Red Hat terminates you.

4. You needed Red Hat N. You're doing enterprisey things or using software that runs on Red Hat.

5. Red Hat releases N + 1.

6. You try to get release N + 1 from Red Hat, because you're in the ecosystem, doing enterprisey things, using software that runs on Red Hat

7. Red Hat remembers what you did on release N and doesn't offer you release N + 1.

It doesn't quite seem like the purchase model. This barely seems to get you anything over what a Rocky or Alma or whatever scrape to put together with Red Hat damming distribution, so you might as well resort to them right at release N instead of paying Red Hat for it.

[indigodaddy]

Right that ends up being the same thing. They are making your redistribution a violation of that (sub?)contract

[insanitybit]

That's not the same thing. You can do everything the GPL allows you to do, you are not restricted from that. But RHEL gets to choose who their customers are and they won't choose you. You can't force them to take you on as a customer, no license can

[indigodaddy]

You’re misunderstanding me. RHEL is saying that to be/maintain as a customer, you have to not redistribute the received product, correct?

So, again, to become a customer and receive a product where the license of that product dictates you CAN redistribute, you MUST first enter into another contract that says if you redistribute the product, it may violate your standing as a customer and jeopardize your chances of receiving any future product.

Of course it’s a loophole, and I really hope it gets to court somehow because I doubt it would stand up. Just my opinion. I don’t know anything about GPL law, but it doesn’t seem logical that this is something that would be able to stand.

[insanitybit]

It's not a loophole. You have every right you were guaranteed by the license. RHEL also has the right to choose their customers. They choose customers who don't exercise the rights granted by the license. This is all fine and compatible.

I hate to use an anecdote but consider that you have some rights that you may exercise - say, free speech. You then come to me and enter into a contract. I am within my rights to not renew that contract if I dislike the things you say under your pre-existing right to free speech, and in fact, I can put it into our contract that I will cancel it if you exercise that right in a way I don't like.

This is normal and commonplace.

edit: Please do not engage with the anecdote. It's meant to be helpful, not be literally equivalent in a legal sense. This is why I hate anecdotesssss

[jolmg]

A better analogy may be how we have a right to take apart our electronic devices, but as soon as we do we void the warranty provided by sellers and/or manufacturers. INAL, I don't know if all warranties fall under contract law, but it makes sense to me that at least extended warranties do, and I imagine those are also voided in such cases.

[secabeen]

Only if you are ignorant of the Magnuson-Moss warranty act. It is not legal in the United States to blanket void a warranty when a device is taken apart or disassembled. Manufacturers can decline a warranty claim when work down by the owner or another servicer causes an issue, but the warranty remains intact for anything unrelated to the work done. So, as an example, if you repair the plug on your electronic device, and then the keyboard has a fault and a key fails due to a bad keyswitch, they still have to replace the keyboard, as your plug repair has no relation to the failed keyswitch component.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/businesspers...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...

[SkyBelow]

Given the First Amendment is a limitation on the government, let's apply this logic to a government service. If the government was to say, stop you from accessing the public library due to the speech you engage in, but did not criminally punishing you for the speech, would this be a First Amendment violation? I think so.

Another, perhaps more realistic example, is a government employer choosing to fire an employee who was caught using their free speech to advocate for a political challenger to the office they work under. Firing a person is not criminally punishing them, and in general an employer can fire an employee for what they say, but in this specific case, because the First Amendment limits the government, they couldn't do this. If you were working for private political organization, they likely could do this as the First Amendment wouldn't apply to the private organization.

[secabeen]

> If you were working for private political organization, they likely could do this as the First Amendment wouldn't apply to the private organization.

Depends on the state, many have added political beliefs to their anti-discrimination laws, and such an act would be prohibited, but at the federal level this would be fine.

[indigodaddy]

The free speech analogy doesn’t hold water for me. Free speech is extremely broad. “You can redistribute” is extremely specific and precise, and RH is effectively stripping this very precise and extremely specific right from you if you want to be/maintain as a “customer”

[insanitybit]

It doesn't need to hold water for you as long as you get my point. It sounds like you don't though and for some reason "broad" and "precise" are factoring into this for you - you should justify that.

[beanjuiceII]

this might be the best way to say it I've seen

[freedomben]

The key here is future versions of RHEL. They can't and won't cut you off from the version of RHEL that they already distributed to you, but if you use it to build a clone distro, then they don't have to sell you a future version of RHEL.

[pabs3]

It isn't quite correct that RedHat is saying that, IIRC from the LWN discussions, the clause is about giving someone who doesn't have a subscription the benefits they would have if they had a subscription. So it would be fine to redistribute in some cases but not others. Probably fine to redistribute every update to entities who already have a subscription, or to redistribute one package to a contractor working on fixing a bug for you etc.