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 3, 2023 7:58 UTC (Thu) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)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
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,
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