On Sunday, January 24, 2021 12:31 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 11:50 AM Josh Boyer jwboyer@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 12:28 PM redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel centos-devel@centos.org wrote:
On Saturday, January 23, 2021 8:25 PM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
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)
I agree with you and didn't expect a FSF member to say Red Hat is doing anything *legally* wrong.
Put please re-read that FAQ answer again carefully:
"If I distribute GPLed software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge? (#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic)"
"No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public."
While it says Red Hat has no obligation to *directly* make GPL software publicly available, it indicates there should be the possibility of it being indirectly publicly available.
What Mike McGrath is indicating Red Hat puts a chilling effect on that indirect redistribution of GPL/LGPL works to the "unentitled."
So, my expectation is that the FSF member would try to explain why using the word "unentitled" goes against the *spirit* of the GPL/LGPL family of licenses. (And hopefully can phrase it better than I can).
As a general reminder, the GPL and LGPL are source code licenses. The source code to the packages in Red Hat Enterprise Linux releases, GPL or otherwise, are released on git.centos.org, which requires no registration and no terms to accept. The recent announcements around CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream did not alter this approach.
Thanks, Josh. I do have to point out that I made no claims about the GPL, LGPL, or even source code in my original response. It was simply one human talking to another human on a mailing list to try and come to a common understanding of what Red Hat considers ok and not ok. Unfortunately, my words continue to be parsed or taken out of context by some of the more anonymous members of this mailing list who continue to act in bad faith. I'll refrain from commenting on our license and terms in the future.
For those that want to participate in the RHEL programs, you are all on your own to find whatever counsel you'd like to understand them.
-Mike
I recognized that you didn't directly make claims about the GPL and LGPL. That is why I asked for clarification.
But a discussion of mirroring RHEL packages for mock is very likely to include GPL and LGPL packages. The claims made still seem to indirectly apply to GPL/LGPL packages.
If I create a repo of mirrored packages that are all covered by the GPL/LGPL such as glibc-devel, does there exist a concept of "unentitled" people to that repo? I am not trying to take anything out of context, instead I am just following what logically the statement seems to apply to.
The issue of creating a mirror of specific GPL/LGPL covered packages for recreating a bug for building a project is not a hypothetical. I have actually done this with CentOS and my understanding has it is not in violation with any CentOS user agreement to have done so.
Since my request for clarification has simply been labeled as being in bad faith, I will try to get more counsel on the issue from sources external to Red Hat and report back.