Red Hat and the Clone Wars: Dissociated Press
dissociatedpress.net
It’s been an exciting week for people who care about Linux distributions, FOSS licensing, FOSS distribution, FOSS business models, and the future of open source in general. Red Hat’s an…

cross-posted from: https://kbin.social/m/linux/t/91676

It’s been an exciting week for people who care about Linux distributions, FOSS licensing, FOSS distribution, FOSS business models, and the future of open source in general. Red Hat’s an…

  • fruitywelsh@lemmy.mlOP
    45·
    1 year ago

    You are not entitled to a developer’s works. If they choose to have you pay for the binaries and include the source with full rights preserved for what you can do with that source, they are providing FLOSS. RHEL after this is still doing better work for the Linux / Libre software space than Ubuntu is by trying to push for vendor lock via snaps in my mind.

    • BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml
      101·
      1 year ago

      While I agree that nobody is entitled to the works of others, I find it both disingenuous and against the spirit of FOSS for Red Hat to lock its code behind a paywall just because it can still use the GPL due to some somewhat sneaky legal maneuvering so it can still call it “open source” by a very narrow technicality. At this point, why even bother? It’s all just so slimy.

      • fruitywelsh@lemmy.mlOP
        1·
        1 year ago

        From a users’ perspective, you still have full rights to review, modify, and even redistribute the code. Though, exercising the last one is where RH limits people to the future code and software to its customer. A positive right to the developer’s future work is something that would require some kind of funding mechanism, but for the purpose of being Libre/Opensource it was something never guaranteed anyway.

        • iusearchbtw@beehaw.org
          21·
          1 year ago

          https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/

          As we understand it, this contract clearly states that the terms do not intend to contradict any rights to copy, modify, redistribute and/or reinstall the software as many times and as many places as the customer likes (see §1.4). Additionally, though, the contract indicates that if the customer engages in these activities, that Red Hat reserves the right to cancel that contract and make no further contracts with the customer for support and update services. In essence, Red Hat requires their customers to choose between (a) their software freedom and rights, and (b) remaining a Red Hat customer. In some versions of these contracts that we have reviewed, Red Hat even reserves the right to “Review” a customer (effectively a BSA-style audit) to examine how many copies of RHEL are actually installed (see §10) — presumably for the purpose of Red Hat getting the information they need to decide whether to “fire” the customer.

          If you contractually limit user rights to redistribute the code, then how can you actually comply with the GPL? Redistribution isn’t an optional clause.

          • fruitywelsh@lemmy.mlOP
            2·
            1 year ago

            They don’t, but they won’t do further business with you if you choose to do so.

            The software and code you have is still fully yours though.