this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2023
134 points (96.5% liked)
Linux
48307 readers
1026 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They still give all the code to their customers and as it is still GPLed code, noone can stop redistribution. So I'm wondering who will be the first RHEL customer which runs some "open mirror" of the RHEL codebase.
From what I've read redistributing it is against the EULA. So you could share it once.
How does that restriction not violate the GPL?
It doesn't. The GPL is satisfied as long as they provide you with the source code for the version of RHEL that they distributed to you. But they're not obligated to continue distributing later versions to you.
I'm referring to their further restrictions on redistribution. I.e., why can't the subscriber then redistribute GPL code they received?
They absolutely can, but ~~RHEL~~ Red Hat will likely stop doing business with them if they find out (and thus stop giving them new versions), hence why they would only be able to do this once.
It doesn't seem likely that would be allowed, as it would arguably constitute a restriction on distribution, which the GPL explicitly forbids.
There's no restriction on distribution. You're free to distribute the GPL software you got from Red Hat.
They're under no obligation to ship you other, different software in the future. You're only entitled to get the source for the binaries they distributed to you. If they never give you the next version, you have no right to its source.
This is something for the courts to resolve, but it seems to me that there's a good argument to say that threats of future punishment (explicit or implied) would constitute a "further restriction" under the GPL.