2
Looks like bing chat is programmed to insist that RedHat RHEL is not violating the GPL…
(lemmy.world)
I admit I know nothing about what programs RedHat has contributed to, or what their plans are. I am only familiar with the GPL in general (I use arch, btw). So I tried to have Bing introduce me to the situation. The conversation got weird and maybe manipulative by Bing.
Can you explain to me why Bing is right and I am wrong?
It sounds like a brazen GPL violation. And if RedHat is allowed to deny a core feature of the GPL, the ability to redistribute, it will completely destroy the ability of any author to specify any license other than MIT. Perhaps Microsoft has that goal and forced Bing to support it.
It’s simple: they can redistribute it since it’s GPL, but if they do so, they break their business contract with RedHat, so they’re not customers anymore and can’t see the source code in the future.
GPL doesn’t mean that they must give the code to everyone, only that you have those rights as long as you have the software. So RedHat is not forced to have everyone as a customer, and according to them, distributing the code kicks you out.
They can still re-distribute the current source they have, but will not have access to future source code.
That is just denying redistribution with extra steps.
The point is that it does not violate the GPL.
If you deny redistribution, you are violating GPL. Do you agree with that?
So the question is then, does telling someone to promise not to do something, and punishing them if they do, violate there right to it?
This has the best explanation I’ve seen: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/
In particular, see the section “What Exactly Is the RHEL Business Model?”.
Or, if you want a short sentence to read only:
I agree that all that can be done is sue them and lets the courts decide what the meaning of the GPL contract is.
I’m surprised at the link you gave since it is written by someone who agrees with my take, not yours and RedHat’s. And you stated clearly that RedHat absolutely is not violating the GPL, when that is actually just your opinion. The real tldr quote of that article is:
Time for a GPL version 4: no extraneous agreements that nullify GPL terms.
My apologies if I seem too hostile. I firmly believe this is an existential issue for open source.
I should’ve been more neutral with my statement.
My takeaway is that so far no one has proved that Red Hat is violating the GPL. On the other hand, Red Hat has provided an explanation that would imply how it works without violating the GPL. So what I’m saying is that if they’re right, then all that I’ve said so far is correct. If they’re wrong, we don’t know yet.
I’m not a lawyer or a Red Hat employee; I’m just here to share my understanding. I posted that link because I thought they explained it well, and yeah, it is not 100% clear yet. But for this same reason, I would not say with confidence that they’re violating the GPL.
If Red Hat customers had the cahonies they should all distribute the source they are entitled to. Let's see if Red Hat is prepared to kill its business by terminating all its support contracts.
Username does not check out. This comment is inappropriately clueful.