What do you all think of the Red Hat drama a few months ago? I just learned about it and looked into it a bit. I’ve been using Fedora for a while now on my main system, but curious whether you think this will end up affecting it.

My take is that yes, it’s kinda a shitty move to do but I get why RH decided to stop their maintenance given they’re a for profit company.

What do you guys think? Do you still use or would you consider using Fedora?

  • EmbeddedEntropy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    As far as I understand, this discussion is still theoretical because Red Hat has not terminated anyone’s subscription or account yet due to distributing GPL’d source to a Red Hat product, so everything’s an assumption until it happens. Do you know if they have that has been publicly disclosed?

    And guess what, they will give it to you.

    Have they explained how they will do that after terminating my subscription?

    I offered some alternative methods to how Red Hat could be GPL compliant. As far as I know, they have not disclosed such a process that meets the terms of the GPL.

    They do not restrict your rights in any way with regards to the software they have already given you.

    By terminating access to the source for GPL’d software I’ve already installed, yes, they have, unless they/you can clarify how they will still allow me to access the matching, buildable source for the binary packages I’ve already installed on my system.

    Normally, I would download the matching source for a package via the dnf or other related tools, but they won’t work if my RHEL subscription or account is terminated. I would like to hear this new method. I offered a couple under my earlier post as possible examples.

    Anyway, that’s inconsequential. By applying any additional restrictions when exercising the GPL granted rights, this violates the GPL. Those restrictions don’t have to be on the rights themselves, they just have to come into effect when the rights granted by the GPL are exercised, which in this case, they do.

    As quoted earlier, GPLv2 section 6 states, “You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein.” It does not say, “You may not impose any further restrictions on the rights granted herein.” It’s not the rights themselves, but the mere exercise of those rights. As I mentioned before, what good is a right to vote if additional restrictions can be included such as paying a fine or tax? This is what section 6 is meant to prevent others from doing.

    A cancelled subscription does not cause me to lose access to the software that has been distributed to me or to any of the rights and freedoms as stated in the licenses ( GPL and otherwise ) for the software that Red Hat has distributed to me.

    You keep saying that, but not mentioning how. Would you please clarify for me how I access the buildable source for the exact version and release of a package I have already installed on my system post-termination of my subscription? Maybe I have missed this in Red Hat’s publications on this matter?

    The subscription is not a software license, it is a contract.

    It is a contract that includes licenses that are part of it, so I’m not sure of your point here?

    Contract law comes into effect here. And fulfilling or breaking the terms of the licenses included as part of the contract are also in play.

    As mentioned, there are certainly ways for Red Hat to terminate aspects of the RHEL support agreement that would comply with the GPL. I certainly accept Red Hat has the rights to terminate future access to newer versions of binaries or sources covered by the GPL. There are ways for them to do that without violating the GPL, and I would like to see them do that, but so far I’ve not seen how they will comply.

    RHEL itself is not licensed under the GPL and so the whole premise is wrong on its face. The subscription agreement is for RHEL itself.

    But components of RHEL are licensed under the GPL. The subscription agreement in part is how Red Hat fulfills the terms of the GPL for those components, so could you clarify the point of your statement?

    If the RHEL software under the GPL did not rely on a working subscription for fulfilling GPL terms, then that would decouple the RHEL subscription from the GPL and covered components, but I have not seen a description yet of how Red Hat will do that.

    Thank you for replying. I’ve had these points and questions for some time, but I have not seen a good rebuttal from someone GPL knowledgeable with Red Hat’s position. If you can clarify and answer the points above, that would help.