On 1/23/21 6:55 AM, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote:
On Friday, January 22, 2021 4:38 PM, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel centos-devel@centos.org wrote:
Just to clarify, you mean we should avoid redistributing RPMs not covered by the GPL/LGPL, right?
For RPMs that are covered by the GPL and LGPL, it should not violate any agreement to redistribute those to anyone? As long as the form of redistribution doesn't claim the receiver is entitled to Red Hat support, anyone is entitled to the GPL/LGPL covered RPMs?
Mike McGrath, I find it troubling a VP level member of Red Hat, Inc. might be implying there exist people that are unentitled to GPL/LGPL covered works. If you don't mind, I would like to see if I can get a member of the Free Software Foundation involved.
So, the way I read the subscription agreement and interpret it for myself and myself alone (that is, this is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer), redistributing material (any material, not just RPMs or SRPMs but things like subscriptin-only bugzilla content, kernel patchset reasons, etc) from my active Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscription is grounds for termination by Red Hat of my access to subscription content. They can't take away what I already have, but they can take away my ability to access future subscription content.
In a nutshell: my interpretation for myself and myself alone is that I am free to redistribute the GPL-covered packages. Red Hat is also free to refuse to continue to do business with me. I thus make the choice to not redistribute.
GPL does NOT require distribution to the public software that is distributed for a fee ( https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityTo... ). If you do actually get a FSF staff member involved, they will probably tell you the same thing.
Quoting Bradley Kuhn in a 2011 posting ( http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/03/05/open-core-slur.html ): " I do have strong, negative opinions about the RHEL business model; I have long called it the "if you like copyleft, your money is no good here" business model. It's a GPL-compliant business model merely because the GPL is silent on whether or not you must keep someone as your customer. Red Hat tells RHEL customers that if they chose to engage in their rights under GPL, then their support contract will be canceled. I've often pointed out (although this may be the first time publicly on the Internet) that Red Hat found a bright line of GPL compliance, walked right up to it, and were the first to stake out a business model right on the line." (and the followup post at http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/03/11/linux-red-hat-gpl.html is a good read)