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.

  • trachemys@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    13·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • Drew Got No Clue@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      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:

      Whether that analysis is correct is a matter of intense debate, and likely only a court case that disputed this particular issue would yield a definitive answer on whether that disagreeable behavior is permitted (or not) under the GPL agreements.

      • trachemys@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        11·
        1 year ago

        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:

        Debates continue, even today, in copyleft expert circles, whether this model itself violates GPL. There is, however, no doubt that this provision is not in the spirit of the GPL agreements.

        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.

        • Drew Got No Clue@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          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.