On Sunday, January 24, 2021 2:04 PM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 1:41 PM redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel centos-devel@centos.org wrote:
On Sunday, January 24, 2021 11:50 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@redhat.com wrote:
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. But Josh Boyer has taken the threat from Red Hat to the next level.
I made no threat. I pointed out that we provide sources to packages, regardless of whether they were GPL or not and any recent announcements haven't changed that.
josh
The statement "as a general reminder, the GPL and LGPL are source code licenses" is a clearly written threatening stance being taken by Red Hat.
It indicates Red Hat is disregarding all the sections of the GPL and LGPL dealing with object code, executables and derivative works.
The availablity of the source code is not being disputed or material.
With CentOS 8, I can take bash-4.4.19-12.el8.x86_64.rpm and redistribute it verbatim such that the digital signature can confirm it remains as-is. As long as I don't misrepresent use of the trademark of being anything more than a verbatim copy, the core values of Copyleft remain.
Mike McGrath has indicated as part of the transistion from CentOS 8 to RHEL 8 there exist a group of people that are "unentitled" to this GPL covered derivative work.
It may not be a change for RHEL, but it is a change for CentOS users.
It has been stated that if there are problems that can impact the ability of CentOS users to use the new RHEL offering then let Red Hat know as there would be additional changes announced on the 1st.
Well, I have let Red Hat know that putting a chilling effect and banning users for exercising the Copyleft redistribution terms is a problem for being able to use RHEL. The answer has made clear we should not expect this to be fixed on the 1st.
Instead, the clarification goes a step further with a harsh miltant stance against Copyleft.
Pointing out Red Hat continues to provide source code doesn't change the statement.
Here is what is important:
GPL covers derivative works.
Object code is a derivative work.
GPL covers object code.
Executables are a derivative work.
GPL covers excutables.
LGPL covers direct modifications creating derivative works.
Again, object code is a derivative work.
And again, executables are a derivative work.
Honoring the spirit of Copyleft does not ever restrict redistribution of a derivative work.
Red Hat can publish the source code to bash where ever it wants, the statement "as a general reminder, the GPL and LGPL are source code licenses" will still be invalid.