On Saturday, January 23, 2021 8:25 PM, Lamar Owen <lowen at 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 at 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#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic > ). 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). Just to be clear, I am not asking for a loophole to be able to redistribute *ALL* of RHEL while retaining access to updates. If they want to say people need to be entitled to RHEL RPMs that are not covered by the GPL/LGPL, each person/organization needs to subscribe themselves, I will accept that. But 2011 statement is extremely damning of Red Hat when he says "if you like copyleft, your money is no good here business model." The relief to this statement was CentOS was available the established alternative to avoiding the chilling effect of that business model. If the move now is RHEL is giving more with it's offer than CentOS is taking away, then the core values of Copyleft should be retained as well. I see it as damaging to Red Hat in the long run sending the message that GPL/LGPL rights respected by CentOS should be disregarded by users when agreeing to the "better" 16 RHEL licenses. The attitude of Red Hat should not be that people will continue to contribute to free software projects regardless of how RH uses the term "unentitled." During this transistion of CentOS users into RHEL users they should re-examine the commentary made back in 2011. Not further re-establish a disregard for the spirit of Copyleft through a chilling effect written into user agreements.