50
Red Hat / Fedora drama? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
86 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

What do you all think of the Red Hat drama a few months ago? I just learned about it and looked into it a bit. I’ve been using Fedora for a while now on my main system, but curious whether you think this will end up affecting it.

My take is that yes, it’s kinda a shitty move to do but I get why RH decided to stop their maintenance given they’re a for profit company.

What do you guys think? Do you still use or would you consider using Fedora?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

As not a lawyer, I'm actually not sure that cancelling the subscription is allowed by the gpl, given that it established that there can be no additional (outside of the license) conditions to share the code. I'd like to see it discussed in court, but I'm not sure interested parties have enough lawyer money for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I would say that cancelling your subscription is a direct violation of the GPL for two reasons.

    For example, say I'm someone who installed RHEL under a subscription. I downloaded the source to the kernel then distributed the SRPM to others leading Red Hat to cancel my subscription/account.

    1. With a cancelled subscription/account, how do I now access the buildable source for say the GCC package I have installed on my system as guaranteed under the GPL?

      If Red Hat didn't cancel my subscription/account, but restricted it to only accessing the matching source downloads for the packages on my system, that would be compliant. But they didn't. They killed all my access for matching source which is non-compliant.

      If Red Hat provided a service where I could request buildable copies of the source for the packages I have installed , this would be compliant. But as far as I know, they have not.

    2. Cancelling my subscription/account is a violation of Section 6 of the GPLv2 which states, " You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

      This clause is to ensure you can freely exercise your rights granted by the GPLv2. Cancelling your subscription/account for no reason other than exercising your rights is a direct violation.

      For example, I have the right to vote. If a government body imposes a hefty fine or tax if I attempted to vote, this would be considered further restrictions on my right to vote. This is what Red Hat has done.

      Red Hat is certainly free to cancel your subscription/account under the terms of their license, but not when it conflicts with the exercise of rights granted under the GPL.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    1. If Red Hat distributed software to you, you are entitled to the source. And guess what, they will give it to you. You are making the false assumption that they will not. There is no evidence for this at all.

    2. Red Hat does not add any restrictions at all to the software license of any GPL work they distribute. You can exercise whatever rights you want regarding the software that Red Hat has distributed to you because they extend it to you via the same license that it was provided to them. They do not restrict your rights in any way with regards to the software they have already given you. A cancelled subscription does not cause me to lose access to the software that has been distributed to me or to any of the rights and freedoms as stated in the licenses ( GPL and otherwise ) for the software that Red Hat has distributed to me. The subscription is not a software license, it is a contract.

    More important than all of this, RHEL itself is not licensed under the GPL and so the whole premise is wrong on its face. The subscription agreement is for RHEL itself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    As far as I understand, this discussion is still theoretical because Red Hat has not terminated anyone's subscription or account yet due to distributing GPL'd source to a Red Hat product, so everything's an assumption until it happens. Do you know if they have that has been publicly disclosed?

    And guess what, they will give it to you.

    Have they explained how they will do that after terminating my subscription?

    I offered some alternative methods to how Red Hat could be GPL compliant. As far as I know, they have not disclosed such a process that meets the terms of the GPL.

    They do not restrict your rights in any way with regards to the software they have already given you.

    By terminating access to the source for GPL'd software I've already installed, yes, they have, unless they/you can clarify how they will still allow me to access the matching, buildable source for the binary packages I've already installed on my system.

    Normally, I would download the matching source for a package via the dnf or other related tools, but they won't work if my RHEL subscription or account is terminated. I would like to hear this new method. I offered a couple under my earlier post as possible examples.

    Anyway, that's inconsequential. By applying any additional restrictions when exercising the GPL granted rights, this violates the GPL. Those restrictions don't have to be on the rights themselves, they just have to come into effect when the rights granted by the GPL are exercised, which in this case, they do.

    As quoted earlier, GPLv2 section 6 states, "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." It does not say, "You may not impose any further restrictions on the rights granted herein." It's not the rights themselves, but the mere exercise of those rights. As I mentioned before, what good is a right to vote if additional restrictions can be included such as paying a fine or tax? This is what section 6 is meant to prevent others from doing.

    A cancelled subscription does not cause me to lose access to the software that has been distributed to me or to any of the rights and freedoms as stated in the licenses ( GPL and otherwise ) for the software that Red Hat has distributed to me.

    You keep saying that, but not mentioning how. Would you please clarify for me how I access the buildable source for the exact version and release of a package I have already installed on my system post-termination of my subscription? Maybe I have missed this in Red Hat's publications on this matter?

    The subscription is not a software license, it is a contract.

    It is a contract that includes licenses that are part of it, so I'm not sure of your point here?

    Contract law comes into effect here. And fulfilling or breaking the terms of the licenses included as part of the contract are also in play.

    As mentioned, there are certainly ways for Red Hat to terminate aspects of the RHEL support agreement that would comply with the GPL. I certainly accept Red Hat has the rights to terminate future access to newer versions of binaries or sources covered by the GPL. There are ways for them to do that without violating the GPL, and I would like to see them do that, but so far I've not seen how they will comply.

    RHEL itself is not licensed under the GPL and so the whole premise is wrong on its face. The subscription agreement is for RHEL itself.

    But components of RHEL are licensed under the GPL. The subscription agreement in part is how Red Hat fulfills the terms of the GPL for those components, so could you clarify the point of your statement?

    If the RHEL software under the GPL did not rely on a working subscription for fulfilling GPL terms, then that would decouple the RHEL subscription from the GPL and covered components, but I have not seen a description yet of how Red Hat will do that.

    Thank you for replying. I've had these points and questions for some time, but I have not seen a good rebuttal from someone GPL knowledgeable with Red Hat's position. If you can clarify and answer the points above, that would help.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    I am not a lawyer either but “outside the licence” sounds wrong. The license ( the GPL ) talks about “additional terms” but those are extensions and modifications of the license itself. The only non-license vehicle that the GPL references is patents.

    Importantly, the status of your Red Hat subscription does not modify the terms of the license. Cancellation of your Red Hat subscription does not cause a modification, impairment, or loss of any of the rights, obligations, or freedoms that you have under any GPL covered work that you have received.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent