Where's the violation?

> Sure but the entire discussion we're having is whether someone can make a "voluntary" agreement with me to let me do things in the course of redistributing GPL'd software to them that the GPL otherwise says I cannot do.

But the point is, Red Hat is not saying "you can't redistribute RHEL", they are saying "There will be consequences if you do".

And as I keep on saying, "don't push YOUR value system on ME!". As a (non-software) company, the right to redistribute software is worth bugger all to me. Why shouldn't I trade it for the far more valuable service contract? I get that to you, the right to redistribute is more valuable than the service contract. So don't sign the service contract!

As an individual, I value the right to give and receive. So I won't sign a service contract, and I don't use RHEL (I can't stand the RHEL ecosystem, likewise I can't stand the debian one. I use Gentoo/SUSE/Slack/KDE). I want to download photos off the web for personal use, so all the photos I upload are CC-BY-SA-NC.

I want to introduce Scarlet to my employer. And any improvements we make to Scarlet I want to contribute back. More than that, since the primary copyright holder of Scarlet is a commerical entity, I'm planning to put a licence grant into Scarlet saying OpenQM can cherrypick any modifications I make. I know it's "pay forward", but it's also "give back".

So if YOU want a copy of Red Hat, what value are you giving back to Red Hat? Because if you are not giving back something THEY WANT, you can't demand anything in return. (ScarletDME/OpenQM is a little different I know, but not much. They *offered* it to me, I feel honour-bound to *offer* my work back to them. Share and share alike, you know?)

Cheers,
Wol