Red Hat’s commitment to open source: A response to the git.centos.org changes
redhat.com
Some mix of wrong and right, the exact proportions of which I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.
You are viewing a single comment
Some mix of wrong and right, the exact proportions of which I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.
I don't think anyone's arguing that Red Hat isn't in the right, legally, to do what they did (anymore). At this point, I think Redhat users are just tired of being jerked around. We're not children, most of us in the industry have been around a while and have seen this same story play out over and over again. We can see the writing on the wall and they've destroyed the trust of their community so, a long winded blog post defending their decision, arguing that they are within their rights to do it is largely irrelevant at this point. They've lost the narrative and the industry (us) will respond by gradually finding ways either away from or around Red Hat and associated projects. Soon, the only people left using it will be the same people who use other irrelevant and dated software, government.
I am. It's there in the GPL text in black and white. Red Hat does not have any right to place restrictions on the distribution of derivative works that they do not own the original copyright for. Threatening to terminate a service agreement is a restriction.
All of the projects that own FOSS code that Red Hat uses in RHEL could legitimately revoke Red Hat's license to use that software on the grounds that they have violated the licensing terms required by the GPL.
From what I understand, these restrictions only apply to if you have been provided the software. Red Hat is under no legal obligation to supply you with their software, nor to continue doing so if you violate their terms.
I agree this makes them total scumbags, but as far as I understand the GPL they are not breaking the law.
Correct.
Correct. I am not a Red Hat customer so they do not have to provide me with anything.
This is also correct, but here is where the problem lies. If they provide a customer with binaries and accompanying GPL-licensed sources, along with a customer agreement which says "if you distribute these sources then we will terminate your customer agreement," then that is in violation of the GPL. RHEL contains code from many projects (the vast majority I would think) that Red Hat does not own the copyright for. Red Hat has a license to use that software under the terms of the GPL. The GPL requires that they make the sources available of any binaries they distribute without further restrictions which limit the freedoms granted by the GPL. One of those freedoms is the freedom to redistribute the source code. Their customers who receive RHEL source packages must be given that freedom for Red Hat to be in compliance with the GPL license.
Whether they are "breaking the law" depends on jurisdiction and laws around copyright infringement, but this would certainly be handled as a civil matter. Projects which provide software to Red Hat under the GPL would be within their rights to ask a civil court to enforce the terms of the license or to mandate that Red Hat cease using their software until they comply. See the recent Stockfish vs. Chessbase case that was settled in Germany: https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2022/chessbase-stockfish-agreement/
In that case, the infringing party was not complying with any terms of the GPL at all, but the same procedure would be relevant in the case of Red Hat vs. any other FOSS project that wants to enforce the terms of the GPL.
That's the first time I've heard someone argue to that point. I agree.
The arguments I'd heard were that they didn't have the right to stop publicly distributing the sources. They do have the right under the GPL stating that the source must only be provided along with the binaries and, if the binaries are only available to subscribers, so too are the sources.