[CentOS-devel] First round of RHEL programs announced

redbaronbrowser

redbaronbrowser at protonmail.com
Sun Jan 24 18:41:03 UTC 2021


On Sunday, January 24, 2021 11:50 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at 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.

You seem to have only gotten to GPL v2 Section 1.

If you continue to read on to GPL v2 Section 3, you will find:

"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2"

So, it clearly indicates the section 1 right to redistribute verbatim copies is extended by section 3 to object/executable form.

If you talk to a member of the Free Software Foundation, you will find that compiling a program still creates a derivative work.

There is also legal precedent since Apple v. Franklin that the source code license also applies to the object code.  The opcodes and values passed to those opcodes is another form of source code, just not the prefered format for modification.

So far the discussion has been if Red Hat should continue to offer update services after someone performs redistribution of the GPL covered derivative work.  It has already been acknowledge Red Hat has the legal right to revoke update service but should reconsider that chilling effect on Copyleft fundamental values.

But Josh Boyer has taken the threat from Red Hat to the next level.  It is nowm implied gcc and rpmbuild can take a GPL work and turn it 100% into Red Hat intellectual property independant of the GPL simply on the basis the derivative work is no longer considered by RH to be source code.  That if someone redistributes Red Hat's "ownership" of bash they should expect a civil or criminal legal consequences.  Or if they redistribute Red Hat's "ownership" of glibc they should expec the same legal consequences.  Or redistribute of Red Hat's "ownership" of gcc...

The copyright of the contributors and the license they selected if being completely disregarded by Red Hat for all object code redistribution.

This level of threat against what the GPL covers is something I expected from Oracle but not Red Hat.  This has now surpassed the scope of centos-devel and the Red Hat attack needs to be addressed on a multitude of forums of GPL contributors.

I withdraw my offer to seek guidance from the Free Software Foundation.  There clearly is no common ground to work from.



More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list