Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Posted Aug 2, 2023 14:42 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46)In reply to: Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view by mb
Parent article: Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Support or *updates* -- RH cutting off future updates is explicitly allowed under the GPL, and even putting that aside, nothing in the GPL says that any support or updates are owed.
(...and if RHEL is not a product, then what exactly is it?)
> Terminating further business with the customer, if the customer exercises the GPL redistribution rights, is pretty damn close to a "further restriction". It's not a real right, if there's no practical way to exercise it.
Negotiated business rights do not fall under the GPL. Again, to quote the GPL:
"You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee."
That support or warranty protection is a separate agreement.
> Terminating further business with the customer, if the customer exercises the GPL redistribution rights, is pretty damn close to a "further restriction". It's not a real right, if there's no practical way to exercise it.
The customer (and RH) can choose to terminate their mutual agreement at any time, for (almost) any reason.
Critically, after the customer and RH have parted ways for whatever reason, all GPL software the customer already obtained from RH remains fully accessible/usable. The former customer no longer has access to *new* stuff, but that's something the GPL has never guaranteed. Indeed, the GPL makes it quite explicit that absent another written agreement, the software is being provided "AS IS", with no warranty, no support, nothing beyond complete corresponding sources.
And throughout this, the customer is completely free to exercise any and all of their rights under the GPL. Indeed, even if they are no longer customers, RH provides a way (via a written offer) to obtain the source code for previously-obtained binaries, with no restrictions beyond the various F/OSS licenses themselves.
I'm sorry, but absent an explicit contract, *nothing* entitles you to the *future work* of someone else. And the GPL text makes this plainly clear.
Posted Aug 2, 2023 15:19 UTC (Wed)
by mb (subscriber, #50428)
[Link] (37 responses)
Yes. My point is not about whether or not RH can terminate the agreement.
> And throughout this, the customer is completely free to exercise any and all of their rights under the GPL.
So it's Ok if RH adds any kind of further restriction?
For example: The customer receives binaries, sources, but is only permitted to distribute sources, if the customer pays RH $1 million.
Posted Aug 2, 2023 16:10 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (35 responses)
Uh, you're the one saying that RH chosing to terminate the agreement constitutes a "further restriction" under the GPL.
> So it's Ok if RH adds any kind of further restriction?
Of course not. But RH isn't adding restrictions to the GPL rights; these restrictions are on their service agreement. To quote RH:
"This Agreement establishes the rights and obligations associated with Subscription Services and is not intended to limit your rights to software code under the terms of an open source license."
> The customer receives binaries, sources, but is only permitted to distribute sources, if the customer pays RH $1 million.
Please, there's no need to discuss a ridiculous hypothetical here, but I'll humor you.
> That would be GPL compliant?
It entirely depends on the agreement the two parties signed. Is this software the vendor wrote themselves? They can put it under whatever terms they want. Is this software modified just for that customer, for a fee? Then it's work-for-hire and the parties can structure that fee however they want. (I will note that it's common for there to be a "buyout clause to obtain full/perpetual rights" in commercial agreements)
If the "Vendor" is taking third-party software and redistributing it (modified or otherwise) then they can't impose any restrictions beyond what their upstream license (ie GPL) allows. So your hypothetical would be nominally a GPL violation -- though according to the GPL the customer would be free to just strip off those terms and carry on.
However, there's nothing to stop the vendor from just suing the customer for breach of contract and having a decent chance of winning -- You can waive all sorts of fundamental rights in a contract, as long as there is no coercion involved.
Seriously. I don't understand why folks are arguing about this, given that even the FSF has (perhaps reluctantly) blessed this sort of arrangement since before Linux ever existed, and instead of addressing this "problem" in the GPLv3 (finalized seven years after the first RHEL release!) or even the GPLv2 (Released in 1991, by which point Cygnus had been doing the same thing with GCC for at least four years) the FSF instead strengthened the language making it explicit that access to any form of support or future updates falls outside the scope of the GPL.
So, no, what RH is doing both falls in line with both the letter, and the spirit, of the GPL.
Posted Aug 2, 2023 16:37 UTC (Wed)
by mb (subscriber, #50428)
[Link] (22 responses)
Ok.
So if the customer wants to exercise the GPL rights given to the customer (from upstream!) and then the distributor:
I don't see the difference.
The problem is not that the company chooses to terminate business relations. Any company is free to do that.
Posted Aug 3, 2023 7:58 UTC (Thu)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (15 responses)
Huh? RH is not forcing the customer to do a damn thing. They are simply refusing to further interact with the customer. If the customer's old machines need support, and RH no longer wants to provide it, that's the customer's problem. It does not magically become an instance of coercion just because it *happens* to be convenient for RH to continue providing support.
Posted Aug 3, 2023 9:16 UTC (Thu)
by mb (subscriber, #50428)
[Link] (1 responses)
Which forces the customer do react.
Posted Aug 3, 2023 17:04 UTC (Thu)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
The customer can continue their business exactly as it was before the support contract ended. They don't have to have a support contract from Red Hat to continue their business - they can run the software unsupported, or provide in-house support, or pay another company (not Red Hat) to support their systems.
If the customer wants support for the OS, then they have to find a support provider who provides what they want. But that is entirely separate to the GPL - the GPL does not obligate anyone to distribute future versions to you (only matching sources for versions they have distributed to you already), and the GPL does not obligate anyone to provide support for software.
Posted Aug 3, 2023 10:25 UTC (Thu)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (12 responses)
The GPL doesn't require anyone to give support for distributed software, but the GPL also disallows the distributor to impose restrictions on the rights it grants.
Be interesting to see this point litigated and get an authoritative legal view on this.
Posted Aug 3, 2023 10:57 UTC (Thu)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (11 responses)
It stands to reason that if you're a RHEL subscriber, Red Hat would rather keep you as a paying customer than not. Hence no one at Red Hat will care if you “exercise your GPL rights” with respect to one or five or two dozen GPL packages from RHEL. They will presumably notice if you break your support contract (not the GPL), e.g., by making a complete almost-RHEL distribution of your own based on RHEL and offering that to third parties, and particularly if you're planning to do so going forward, in direct competition with Red Hat itself, based on the support that you yourself are getting from Red Hat. That is what is going to cause Red Hat to void your support contract, not your giving GNU Emacs or Bash sources from RHEL to your buddy under the GPL. This is no more or less than what any other company would do under the circumstances, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the GPL.
IOW, if you want charity, run Debian.
Posted Aug 3, 2023 11:12 UTC (Thu)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (10 responses)
The issue is how that plays out with the "no further restrictions on rights" aspect of the GPL - and how that balances out with the other, counter-veiling, factors - that have been pointed out many times in this thread.
It'd be nice to get an authoritative view on that. It will require someone risking their money and suing one of the companies using these kinds of clauses. RedHat are generally good, and always offer sources. So, can be kind of sympathetic to them.
There are /other/ companies (in open source networking, packets and routing, say) who I am 99.9% sure are using this trick, but who do /not/ make sources routinely available, and who I strongly suspect penalise customers who exercise right to redistribute *source* (cause, the project I worked on, we /never/ got their modifications fed back to us quietly by customers). They would be /morally/ the better companies to go after. But the additional issues could muddy any opinion obtained - in so far as it might shed light on RedHat's practice.
Posted Aug 3, 2023 12:38 UTC (Thu)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (9 responses)
Many people don't seem to get that “no further restrictions” thing. If I give you the sources to GNU Emacs under the GPL but attach a clause saying “no distribution of this on Sundays”, that's adding a “further restriction” to the GPL (which is not allowed). OTOH, if Red Hat includes a clause in their separately-negotiated support contract saying that they reserve the right to cancel that support contract for people who they notice are ripping off RHEL, that is not a “further restriction” on the distribution of GPL code in RHEL, it's a support issue – and the GPL stipulates explicitly that receiving code under the GPL does not automatically entitle one to support or future updates.
In particular, there is nothing in the GPL that keeps you from buying a subscription to RHEL and using that to jump-start your own Linux distribution. Sure, Red Hat will be likely to cancel your (separate) RHEL subscription for the future, but even then you're still completely free to use and distribute the GPL code from RHEL that you already have, pursuant to the GPL – it's just that you won't receive any new RHEL updates from Red Hat. If the Red Hat support contract cancellation clause did, in fact, constitute a “further restriction” on your rights to distribute the GPL code in RHEL, then this would not be the case.
Posted Aug 3, 2023 12:49 UTC (Thu)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (8 responses)
How it balances out with the other factors is something only a court could determine (assuming we don't have clearly applicable precedent, that a lawyer could already point to).
Discussing back and forth here ("it's a restriction" -> "but it's a support contract, and GPL doesn't require support!" -> "but..") isn't really going to settle how a court would balance these different factors against each other. ;)
Posted Aug 3, 2023 14:16 UTC (Thu)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (7 responses)
It can't be a restriction if it doesn't restrict anything. Your rights with respect to the GPL code in the version of RHEL on your computer are exactly the same whether you have a current RHEL subscription or not.
The only right that is at issue here is the right to receive future updates from Red Hat as part of the subscription, and that is obviously Red Hat's to grant or withdraw, according to their separately-negotiated support contract with you (not the GPL).
Posted Aug 3, 2023 15:06 UTC (Thu)
by mb (subscriber, #50428)
[Link] (1 responses)
Ok. I will distribute your GPLed software with an added letter to a third party. I will only give the SW away, if the third party signs that letter. The words of the letter are: "You may only exercise your GPL rights, if you run naked over the city market place."
If this is not a restriction, than I could add anything to the GPL as an amendment.
Maybe it is useless. I don't rule that possibility out.
(This is not legal advise)
Posted Aug 3, 2023 17:09 UTC (Thu)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
You're describing a different situation.
In the Red Hat situation, you can distribute the software as much as you like; the worst that happens is that Red Hat stops doing something you want them to do.
In your situation, you're asking the third party to do something additional to the licence if they redistribute. That's what makes it an additional restriction - there is something else that you must do to exercise the rights you have under the GPL.
Posted Aug 3, 2023 16:07 UTC (Thu)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
A legal professional would be able to say "The case of X in the FOO court/jurisdiction, with GIVEN_FACTS, the court concluded ABC". And if there are no cases where GIVEN_FACTS are similar enough, they'd say that instead and point out we need a case.
If I receive binaries from RedHat, and if - as the GPL allows - I publish those, and RedHat consequently terminate my support contract and access under terms in that contract that explicitly equate "using Subscription Services in connection with any redistribution of Software" with "material breach of the Agreement", then it would seem to me that I am indeed restricted from exercising my GPL rights if I wish to maintain my support agreement with RedHat.
I have no idea what factors matter here, and how they inter-play and balance out. It seems to me that no-one else in these comments section knows either - at least not to the extent that they can present a scholarly argument, with citations to relevant case law (??).
So it seems to me that the best thing to do here is to acknowledge that uncertainty, rather than continuing claiming we know for sure. FWIW, without some references to actual law, judgements or other detailed legal analysis, I'm going to stick to my view that no one here knows either way, to any significant certainty.
Posted Aug 3, 2023 23:46 UTC (Thu)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (3 responses)
IMO, a lot hinges on what exactly Red Hat does. Suppose you pay $1000 for a one-year support contract, and then a month later exercise your rights under the GPL. If Red Hat refunds you 11/12 of $1000 for the unused part of the support contract, then I agree it's not really an additional restriction on the GPL. However, if they cancel your contract and don't refund the unused amount, then I don't think it's clear that it isn't an additional restriction.
I don't use Red Hat and have no idea what its policy is in this regard, but I'd be curious to find out.
Posted Aug 4, 2023 0:37 UTC (Fri)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
You can “exercise your rights under the GPL” with the GPL code in your copy of RHEL until the cows come home – you can modify it, distribute it in original or modified form, etc. as specified in the GPL –, and this applies equally no matter whether you have an active paid-for RHEL subscription, whether Red Hat has cancelled it, or whether you just let it expire. After all, that's what the GPL says, and we can reasonably assume that Red Hat's lawyers know the GPL very well, and that Red Hat doesn't want to be sued by the copyright owners of GPL code in RHEL.
The question as far as Red Hat is concerned, however, isn't whether you “exercise your rights under the GPL”, it's whether you abuse your support contract with Red Hat by giving someone else the benefit of a RHEL subscription (e.g., by feeding them the RHEL updates you get from Red Hat so they don't need to buy their own subscription). In that case Red Hat may decide that they do not want to give you further updates under that support contract, which is fair enough – presumably they like being ripped off as little as any other company. But this is in no way, shape, or form a GPL issue because your “rights under the GPL” are not touched by this at all; getting updates to code is expressly not a GPL right.
Posted Aug 4, 2023 0:51 UTC (Fri)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
If you exercise your rights under the GPL, Red Hat may well still let you keep the support contract - the relevant behaviour is not "exercising your rights under the GPL", but "giving a third party the benefit of the Red Hat services". So, for example, if you give me a copy of the Red Hat version of the kernel, so that I can debug a kernel issue for you, no breach has taken place, and Red Hat won't terminate. Or, for another example, if I'm paying for the original author to support rp-pppoe for me, and I send them a copy of Red Hat's source and binaries for rp-pppoe so that they can apply the fix to the RH version for me, that's also going to be fine with Red Hat - I'm not giving away the benefit of my RH contract to a third party, I'm paying a third party to give me more benefits than RH does (presumably because the original author of rp-pppoe is better at supporting my use case than RH are).
If you do give a third party the benefit of the RH services, then you are in breach of contract, and you lose your support contract. In such a circumstance, Red Hat's terms section 3.1 says:
Posted Aug 4, 2023 8:02 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
> I don't use Red Hat and have no idea what its policy is in this regard, but I'd be curious to find out.
Legally, I personally think that it's extremely clear. YOU broke the terms of the contract (that is, the support contract, not the implied licence contract). As such, YOU gave Red Hat the right to walk away. Which means they have no obligation to do anything, let alone refund the money.
As has been repeatedly said, this is all about 3rd parties reselling Red Hat's work, without paying Red Hat. Regardless of the legalities (which I think are pretty clear), the politest term for this behaviour is "ripping off".
True, I'm quite happy to take advantage of other peoples' generosity. But I also try and "pay forward". And I don't get all "high and mighty" when or if they decide it's not worth the candle and no longer want to be so generous.
Cheers,
Posted Aug 3, 2023 8:56 UTC (Thu)
by eduperez (guest, #11232)
[Link] (5 responses)
The key point here is that RH is not adding any restriction over the GPL, *on the binaries or sources already distributed*. The customer receives the binaries and their sources, as stipulated by the GPL, without further restrictions on what they can do or not with those binaries and sources. On the other hand, there is a support contract, that RH can terminate at will, but that termination has no effect *on the binaries or sources already distributed*.
Posted Aug 3, 2023 9:19 UTC (Thu)
by mb (subscriber, #50428)
[Link] (4 responses)
Yes, they do restrict exactly that. The customer can choose either to not distribute the sources or to distribute them and loose support. Which makes it a further restriction. It's a direct coupling.
Posted Aug 3, 2023 17:13 UTC (Thu)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link] (2 responses)
Right, but the customer has no right to support. They have a right to redistribute the sources, granted by the GPL, but their support is contingent on Red Hat's goodwill. And even if Red Hat stop support, they still have the sources, and can still distribute them.
The whole reason it's not an additional restriction is that what you lose is not something you have a right to under either copyright law or the GPL terms - it's something Red Hat offer as an addition on top of your rights.
To give you a fair analogy, if I said I'd run naked through the city centre every time you redistribute, that's an additional right granted to you. If I then say "but I don't like the way you're redistributing, I'm no longer going to run naked", that's not an additional restriction - that's removing something that I added on top of the GPL.
Posted Aug 3, 2023 17:48 UTC (Thu)
by mb (subscriber, #50428)
[Link] (1 responses)
Nope. It's an offering in exchange for the customer's GPL rights. You can't have both at the same time. That's why it is a restriction.
(This is not legal advise)
Posted Aug 3, 2023 18:24 UTC (Thu)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
How is it in exchange? You do not lose your GPL rights by taking up RH's support contract; you retain them, even if you later lose your RH support contract for breaching the terms of that contract.
Further, exercising your GPL rights does not automatically terminate your RH support contract; the specific clause for termination involves you using your support contract to give a third party the benefit of an RH subscription. Thus, you can distribute code using your GPL rights without losing your RH support subscription. If it was an exchange, you would not be able to do that at all - and yet you can, as long as (in RH's view) you're not giving a third party the benefits of your support subscription.
Posted Aug 4, 2023 5:52 UTC (Fri)
by eduperez (guest, #11232)
[Link]
Posted Aug 2, 2023 17:10 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (11 responses)
> Of course not. But RH isn't adding restrictions to the GPL rights; these restrictions are on their service agreement. To quote RH:
And this is a SUPPORT CONTRACT.
Pretty much ALL support contracts come with wording that says "if you do X, Y or Z, then we will terminate this agreement". Heck, even CONSUMER contracts come with this - "if you break the seal, then the warranty is void".
So this contract by Red Hat is the NORM for the industry it's operating in, it's nothing special whatsoever.
Cheers,
Posted Aug 2, 2023 17:12 UTC (Wed)
by mb (subscriber, #50428)
[Link] (10 responses)
And that is perfectly fine and legal *unless* X, Y or Z is "exercise the given GPL rights that came from upstream".
Posted Aug 2, 2023 17:47 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (9 responses)
Again, I have to point out that the GPL specifically allows you to terminate support/update agreements for your product when you supply the source code and installation instructions. How is that not RH exercising their own rights under upstream's GPL?
(And the FSF could have tried to do something about this "problem" during both the GPLv3 and v2 iterations, yet did not..)
Posted Aug 2, 2023 18:02 UTC (Wed)
by mb (subscriber, #50428)
[Link] (8 responses)
Why are you bringing up that point again?
It would be completely insane to have a clause like "You may suppress GPL freedoms with a threat in a support contract". It doesn't make any sense at all to have such a clause in the GPL. Why would anybody have added that? It would render the GPL completely useless, because everybody could always setup a support contract with such a clause just for suppression of GPL rights that came from upstream.
And it's not actually what the stanza is all about.
The GPL actually says exactly the opposite. It explicitly forbids further restrictions.
Posted Aug 2, 2023 18:05 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (7 responses)
Do you not grasp the concept that *NO SUPPORT* is the explicit default state under the GPL?
If you want support, you have to come to a separate agreement, and that agreement can include either party voluntarily waiving nearly any rights they would otherwise have.
You don't like that, fine. But that is a property of the legal regime that the GPL exists within.
Posted Aug 2, 2023 18:19 UTC (Wed)
by mb (subscriber, #50428)
[Link] (6 responses)
>If you want support, you have to come to a separate agreement,
Except that the GPL explicitly forbids such an additional restriction.
The software can only be distributed by RH, if they comply to all GPL terms and conditions. Including the "further restrictions" paragraph.
Posted Aug 2, 2023 19:29 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (4 responses)
You are not a lawyer. Neither am I, for that matter. So I will freely say that my interpretation of the plain text of the GPL can be incorrect.
However, actual lawyers, including ones closely associated with F/OSS organizations, along with the actual license authors, say that what RH is doing is perfectly in line with the letter of the GPL. Furthermore, with respect to arguments about the *spirit* of the GPL, the FSF has now had two major opportunities to address this scenario (ie with the GPLv2 and the GPLv3), and if anything, have made it more explicit that support/updates lie outside the scope of what the GPL provides, and that support/update agreements can terminate if you exercise your right under the GPL to get source code.
After all, GPL software is explicitly provided "As-is, with no warranty" -- What you have in your hands (and the complete corresponding source code) is all you're entitled to get. If you want anything more, you'll have to come to a separate agreement [1], explicitly outside the scope of the GPL. Which you are free to accept, or not.
At this point I'm just repeating myself, so I'm done here.
[1] Which is precisely what paying for RHEL gets you -- a limited warranty and the promise of support/updates, in exchange for money and other considerations.
Posted Aug 2, 2023 19:46 UTC (Wed)
by mb (subscriber, #50428)
[Link] (1 responses)
Yes. That's what I also said here.
RH is Ok, but for different reasons than what you said. They do publicly distribute all sources of all the GPLed work that they gather, possibly modify and re-distribute. That's enough to fully comply with upstream GPL licenses.
>You are not a lawyer.
How do you know?
Posted Aug 3, 2023 2:13 UTC (Thu)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
> How do you know?
A lawyer would not be sitting here making broad-based statements without knowing more details about their client's situation or at least disclaiming "this is not legal advice and even if it was, I am not *your* lawyer".
Posted Aug 12, 2023 21:27 UTC (Sat)
by sinuhe (guest, #68638)
[Link] (1 responses)
Company lawyers want to keep their company in compliance to avoid the cost of legal issues, audits, and so on, and in general are used to proprietary licenses, not open source EULAs, including trademark, so they typically won’t distinguish the nuance. It does make me wonder if the GPL will have further clarification from the FSF in the future now that Red Hat’s subscription agreement problems are more publicized. Remember, not all licenses are copyleft in RHEL, but there is a substantial base with the GPL.
Finally, it’s curious there’s not been word from esr on this. He fell out with Red Hat awhile ago, yet has espoused abandoning copyleft. It presents an interesting conversation if he were to blog again.
Posted Aug 12, 2023 23:37 UTC (Sat)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
RH's subscription terms have been essentially unchanged for over twenty years, going all the way back to the RHEL 2 release in 2002, a full five years before the GPLv3 was released. Furthermore, this approach is the same as what Cygnus did with GCC (ie an actual GNU project!) starting in 1989, about two years before the GPLv2 was released!
If anything, the FSF has _strengthened_ the language permitting what Red Hat is doing -- They make it clear that GPL rights only apply to the specific release the user has in their hands and there is no guarantee of support or any future updates [1]. Additionally, it explicitly states that support and future updates can be withdrawn if the user exercises their rights to source and "installation instructions" under the GPL.
So I have a very hard time seeing how the FSF could address what RH is doing without also effectively requiring everyone to provide a warranty (and thus updates/support) for free. Which simply isn't going to happen.
[1] although support/updates may be provided for a fee [2]
Posted Aug 3, 2023 9:32 UTC (Thu)
by kleptog (subscriber, #1183)
[Link]
We've been here before. Whether what RH is doing would be considered an "additional restriction" or "a customer of RH using their freedom of contract to negotiate away some rights in exchange for something else" is entirely context dependant.
RH saying that the customer must pay $1 million would probably be considered an additional restriction.
Ain't the law fun? What counts as "additional restriction" is determined by (case) law in your jurisdiction, not the GPL. Otherwise you could argue that the fact that RH isn't paying your internet connection to upload the sources to other people is an "additional restriction".
Posted Aug 2, 2023 16:44 UTC (Wed)
by jwarnica (subscriber, #27492)
[Link]
No, that would be a specific restriction on a GPL granted right. A right not granted by RH, a right (mostly, RH contributes to many packages) RH isn't able to take away.
The rights RH may take away are those that were born of the subscription agreement.
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
That would be GPL compliant?
The customer is free to exercise the GPL rights. The customer just has to pay that money.
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
1) forces the customer to pay money -> GPL violation. We agree on this point.
2) forces the customer to migrate to another OS and loose support for old machines -> Not a GPL violation? We disagree.
3) forces the customer to do $SOMETHING -> IMO always a GPL violation.
It's an additional restriction.
The problem is that the company puts a clause into the business agreement that adds an option to terminate the agreement as a punishment for exercising GPL rights. This relation is why I think this is a further restriction of the GPL license.
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
>They are simply refusing to further interact with the customer.
Or how do you think they are going to continue their business?
This is not a free decision. It is enforced by RH.
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
RH explicitly states they will react punitively - terminating the customer relationship - if a customer exercises GPL granted rights. It's not a random act of ceasing a relationship with a customer, it is _explicitly_ predicated on exercise of GPL rights.
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
The issue is how that plays out with the "no further restrictions on rights" aspect of the GPL - and how that balances out with the other, counter-veiling, factors - that have been pointed out many times in this thread.
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Still it is a restriction.
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
What if the person doesn't want to run naked and want to redistribute the SW?
Not a restriction?
Am I violating the license that you gave me?
The "further restrictions" paragraph would be useless.
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Suppose you pay $1000 for a one-year support contract, and then a month later exercise your rights under the GPL.
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
All Fees, expenses and other amounts paid under the Agreement are non-refundable. The Software Subscription Fees are for Services; there are no Fees associated with the Software licenses
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Wol
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Wol
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
This is a misinterpretation on your side.
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
>and that agreement can include either party voluntarily waiving
>nearly any rights they would otherwise have.
RH is a licensee of the GPL. It must comply to the terms and conditions.
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
> RH is a licensee of the GPL. It must comply to the terms and conditions.
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
>along with the actual license authors, say that what RH is doing is perfectly in line with
>the letter of the GPL.
The customer can get the sources from that second channel and redistribute it without risking non-compliance with their support contract.
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
[2] which necessitates an additional agreement/contract stating what limits/terms of support, the actual fees, and so forth.
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view
RH saying that they may terminate the contract is almost certainly fine. After all, RH doesn't even need to give a reason to terminate a contract, they could do it because they don't like the name of your company, or because it's Tuesday.
Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view