AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change

Posted Jul 5, 2023 19:39 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46)
In reply to: AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change by madscientist
Parent article: AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change

> The recipients of that software get source code. But they cannot exercise the Four Freedoms (specifically Freedom 2) without losing access to the software.

That should read: "...without losing access to FUTURE releases that Red Hat might create."

Under no scenario do they lose access [1] to the software they've already obtained. Nor do they lose access to the complete corresponding source code to this software; if their access to RH systems is cut off -- according to the written offer, RH will supply the complete corresponding source code to your current binaries for $5.

[1] They can't download _new_ copies of said software from Red Hat, but the copies they already have remain fully accessible and functional.

AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change

Posted Jul 5, 2023 21:21 UTC (Wed) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link] (2 responses)

> That should read: "...without losing access to FUTURE releases that Red Hat might create."

Yes, correct. I guess I thought that was clear from the context but maybe not. You can fully exercise your Freedom 2, as they must allow, for the software you already have... anything else would be a _clear_ violation of the GPL. However you can only do so under threat that your business may no longer be viable in the future (if you require a Red Hat support contract, which many places do require for various reasons).

AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change

Posted Jul 5, 2023 22:46 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (1 responses)

> However you can only do so under threat that your business may no longer be viable in the future (if you require a Red Hat support contract, which many places do require for various reasons).

There's nothing that forces you to redistribute GPL software you've received; it's just that you can, if you choose to. And similarly, you can choose not to, for any reason whatsoever.

"I choose to not do X because I get something more valuable in exchange" is not only perfectly legal, but is IMO the fundamental underpinning of all human societies.

AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change

Posted Jul 6, 2023 1:04 UTC (Thu) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link]

The reason Red Hat is in a position to make their product in the first place is that they have used work that I (the copyright holder) produced, and I allowed them to redistribute it with the understanding that they would not restrict the freedoms of others that they distributed it to. If the others want to take advantage of the freedoms that I intended them to have, and Red Hat won't allow them to do that without inflicting some harm on them as punishment for exercising that freedom, then they are abrogating that agreement: maybe not according to the courts (we don't know) but certainly morally. If they didn't want to be held to that standard then they should not have made the agreement with me (by using my work).

Of course RH is not obligated to support anyone, and they can stop offering support for all sorts of reasons. If their support contract says they won't support anyone who wears loafers without socks, fine with me. But if it says that they will cancel the contract if someone exercises the freedoms they agreed to allow when they redistributed my software, that's a completely different thing and I have to suspect that difference is obvious to everyone.

I certainly have no problem with Red Hat restricting the redistribution of non-copyleft software (things under the MIT / BSD license for example). In fact they should absolutely do that if they want to; the copyright holders of that software explicitly said they should feel free to do it. But at least some of us who provide GPL'd software have what I think are clear expectations in return for making it available and in my opinion Red Hat isn't meeting those expectations any longer.

Anyway I have no interest in getting into a lengthy back and forth which will no doubt descend ultimately into Godwin's law. The question was asked Honestly, I am asking hoping that somebody with a different perspective can explain to me as I feel like I must not understand and taking that at face value, I've provided an honest explanation to the best of my ability. You may not agree with it but hopefully you understand it, just as I understand your argument... and don't agree with it.