An exceptionally well explained rant that I find myself in total agreement with.
I can’t believe how many people fundamentally misunderstand the spirit behind the GPL.
It helps to consider “the software” as a single snapshot in time, with the GPL’s intention that the consumer may make their own fixes, rebuild, and redistribute. Check.
Remember: “Free as in freedom, not free as in beer.” Selling open source software has always been explicitly allowed, as long as you make the source available to those who receive it. Check.
What the GPL does NOT provide is guaranteed access to maintenance and future versions of said software. Again, it applies to a snapshot, as delivered.
In a nutshell, the customer receives open source everything they FOR A PARTICULAR VERSION.
I see no problem — either in spirit or letter — in Redhat’s approach here.
The GPL requires that you do not put additional limits on a user’s rights to redistribute.
Saying “you have the right, but we’ll cut ties” isn’t really in keeping with the spirit of that.
I suspect, if it ever ended up in court, they’d agree yhat there’s no guarantee of access to future versions, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a shitty and cynical take that flies against what FOSS has traditionally stood for.
We can agree to disagree. “The Software” was delivered, source included. And you as end consumer are free to redistribute and maintain as you wish.
However, I cannot see any contract law judgement that would force continuation of a subscription model on the vendor (in perpetuity!) if they do not wish to remain under contract.
The problem is that the GPL states:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein.
Red Hat are arguing that they are free to punish customers from exercising their rights under the GPL, and that punishment does not constitute a “restriction”, even though its done specifically to discourage people from exercising those rights. Whether Red Hat have found a loophole is something for the courts to decide, but it’s clearly against the intention and spirit of the GPL.
That’s a fair point, and worthy of deliberation.
However, I would continue to argue that if Redhat does not restrict parties’ rights to the source code they’ve been given, then they’ve satisfied the GPL.
It is my understanding (at least initially) that the GPL was meant to solidify the end user’s rights to the software they have, so that they’re not left with an unfixable binary executable.
And again, there are no rights granted by the GPL for FUTURE versions.
Ok, yes as far as I understand they are not breaking the GPL, but it’s still a d**k move as it leaves downsteam projects/distros in a mess of a situation. While technically allowed, I’m with Jeff on this one.
SFC thinks they are in violation of the GPL for what that’s worth.
