RedHat found a way to get around the GPLv2 license intention with contract law

https://opencoreventures.com/blog/2023-08-redhat-gets-around-gplv2-license-intention-with-contract-law/

by andy99 • 3 years ago

167 201 3 years ago

opencoreventures.com

mike_hock4• 3 years ago

Hopefully the GPLv4 will plug this loophole.

robertlagrant• 3 years ago

GPLv4 will be fought with sticks and stones.

mike_hock4• 3 years ago

Sticks and stones may break my bones but Redhat will never paywall the source again.

linuxftw5• 3 years ago

There's no loophole. If you distribute software covered by the GPL, you have to release the source to any person that you distributed the software to, and you have to release it under the same GPL.

The real loophole is enforcement. There's no case law that allows an end user to get standing for GPL software, only the copyright holder can enforce the license.

mike_hock4• 3 years ago

you have to release the source to any person that you distributed the software to, and you have to release it under the same GPL.

And this same GPL allows them to further distribute the software to third parties. If you're threatening and intimidating people not to do so, you're subverting the terms of the license.

Alupis4• 3 years ago

It has to be said over and over, unfortunately.

A license or contract is only as good as your ability to enforce it.

dragonwriter2• 3 years ago

There's no case law that allows an end user to get standing for GPL software

There's case law establishing clearly the doctrine that intended third-party beneficiaries can enforce contract provisions, and that the GPL operates as a contract and not just a bare copyright license. There is not yet case law on third-party beneficiaries under the GPL (though there is plenty of rrason to believe that end users are such under the broader case law on the topic), AFAIK, though SFC v. Vizio, currently proceeding under that theory last I saw status, may well provide it.

chasil• 3 years ago

Red Hat offers free developer accounts with available downloads of the install ISOs.

I have never seen the source ISOs from this perspective.

However, would it not be trivial for Rocky, Alma, and Oracle to simply use "burner" developer accounts to pull the source ?

flaptrap• 3 years ago

Again the fallacy. GPLv2 allow (1) giving the source code along with the binaries or (2) promise to allow any third-party to obtain those sources for the cost of copying. The Software Freedom Conservancy post shows that Red Hat considers GPL licensing to be a serious matter. Correct, an end user could not enforce a copyright violation, but the copyright owner can assign those rights.

I also think Red Hat is complying with GPL and other licenses, just it is closer to the edge than last month.

hyperhopper3• 3 years ago

The whole purpose of gpl is if you want to be a user of software, you should get freedoms. This effectively eliminates those freedoms by saying that if you use those freedoms, you will no longer be a user.

Defeats the whole purpose, definitely a loophole.

pabs34• 3 years ago

Software Freedom Conservancy have a legal theory that the GPL functions as both a license and contract and that recipients of GPLed binaries are third-party beneficiaries of the GPL contract. They are also suing Vizio under that theory. Their next court dates are in California in September IIRC.

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

redox993• 3 years ago

The current problem arises from the fact that you have to ask for the source code. So companies can retaliate (if you ask us for the source code, we terminate this other contract).

The solution would be to mandate either including the source code when you distribute the software, or a link to something like IPFS that hosts the source code.

circuit104• 3 years ago

mandate either including the source code

This could cause problems by making the size of binary packages/executables a lot larger because they’d also need the source

m4632• 3 years ago

Isn't some of the code that redhat distributes under GPLv3 or AGPL?

Are the terms there stricter?

jzb9• 3 years ago

AGPL provisions kick in for services delivered over a network, basically the SaaS models.

With RHEL some of the code may be under the AGPL (I haven't checked if any of the RHEL packages are actually AGPL), but it's not being offered as a service in a way that should trigger AGPL requirements AFAIK.

GPLv3 doesn't contain any provisions that address this as far as I am aware. It was concerned with things like "Tivoization" and embedded software.

None of the terms in those licenses require the things that everybody seems to want them to require: verbatim publishing of exact source code to everyone everywhere that allows "bug for bug" clones of RHEL and/or continuing a business relationship that forces Red Hat to convey the GPL rights for all RHEL releases no matter what a customer does with those rights.

bragr2• 3 years ago

Not really in regards to this particular issue. GPLv3 has the same issue in that it only people who receive the binaries are entitled to the source, and 3rd parties technically have no right to demand the source. AGPL is a little broader, but if I don't allow anyone else access to my modified AGPL app, again technically no 3rd parties could demand the source from me.

It'll be interesting to see if there is some new generation of licenses that require derivatives in source form to be publicly available, but enforcement seems almost impossible.

quectophoton• 3 years ago

[...] licenses that require derivatives in source form to be publicly available

Note, this fails the "desert island test" from Debian's Free Software Guidelines[1].

If someone wants their software to be accepted in the Debian package repositories, they should be aware that using this license might prevent them from doing so.

I'm not opining on whether that's a good policy or a bad policy, only mentioning that that's a thing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...

jzb9• 3 years ago

"It violates the spirit of the open source software movement"

Says a person promoting open core. I have little interest in hearing lectures about the spirit of open source from open core proponents. None, actually.

There are definitely folks who have standing to talk about Red Hat's decisions around distributing GPL'ed code, but if you're out there promoting open core or primarily make your money with proprietary code, you're not in that group.

TylerE• 3 years ago

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

jancsika• 3 years ago

I have little interest in hearing lectures about the spirit of open source from open core proponents. None, actually.

I maintain an open source project.

I'd like to lecture you on how Red Hat is violating the spirit of the open source software movement.

How's Tuesday work for you?

jzb9• 3 years ago

If you wanna swing round and buy the beer, go for it. Or Scotch. I'm partial to a good Scotch.

dralley6• 3 years ago

Reread that sentence again. Particularly the words "from open core proponents"

zeruch• 3 years ago

Even broken clocks are right twice a day (once if on 24 hour time)

yellow_lead• 3 years ago

RockyLinux has a work-around that doesn’t violate any subscription agreements and AlmaLinux is adjusting its development model to pull from CentOS Stream.

A bit out of the loop here - what is the workaround?

sleepytimetea• 3 years ago

They run a cloud VM with a paid RHEL AMI and use it to pull the sources. :-).

Alupis4• 3 years ago

How long until this work-around is "patched" by RH/IBM?

This is a big part of the reason there's so much uncertainty in the RHEL community right now...

AshamedCaptain4• 3 years ago

Is this true? How is this compatible with what other posters are asserting -- that the issue at hand is that Redhat will kill your contract if you start distributing the sources?

not_your_vase• 3 years ago

It's not like they are the first ones. Anyone remember GRSecurity, especially after their beef with a person called L. Torvalds? They "pulled a red hat" before it was cool. Would be surprised if they were the first ones.

EGreg4• 3 years ago

You know, they could use utility tokens as a way to monetize open source software. Have they looked into it?

In order to do that, they would have to use a strong network effect to lock in their audience and make it more costly to fork the whole ecosystem than just keep paying for the utility.

What is the alternative? Everyone who is silently downvoting — I would LOVE to hear a viable alternative.

wmf3• 3 years ago

You're name-dropping utility tokens as if we know what those are but we don't. Somebody needs to explain exactly how these utility tokens would work before we'll take them seriously.

EGreg4• 3 years ago

A utility token is a decentralized token you pay to a provider in order to do a service for you. Maybe it's hosting. Maybe it's manual work. Maybe it's AI credits. Maybe -- like in the case of RHEL - it's licensing fees. Think about it like the API credits and quotas that you are given by an API provider, except more decentralized.

You can use trustlines to make it a lot more scalable, meaning the provider only closes out the trustline and posts it to the blockchain to collect the tokens, once in a while, not on every micropayment.

Here is an example: https://qbix.com/ecosystem

tonyarkles3• 3 years ago

(Note: I am engaging in good faith. I'm not arguing against utility tokens, I'm just not sure I get how they're applicable) I read your sibling comment and I'm still not sure I get this:

they could use utility tokens as a way to monetize open source software

First, who is "they" in this context? RedHat?

use a strong network effect to lock in their audience and make it more costly to fork the whole ecosystem than just keep paying for the utility
Maybe -- like in the case of RHEL - it's licensing fees.

I'm trying to parse this and I'm just not following. What's the "monetize open source" business model here with utility tokens? RedHat's current business model is:

"Set up a contract where businesses pay money every month, in exchange for access to RHEL builds and technical support, whether or not they use that tech support in a given month."

I think I conceptually get what a "utility token" is from having a skim through the QBUX site, but... I don't really get how it would change things in this case, other than likely making it more difficult for people to pay for RHEL subscriptions?

What is the alternative? Everyone who is silently downvoting — I would LOVE to hear a viable alternative.

I think the trick is that the viable alternative is the status quo. You haven't really explained how this would lead to RedHat making more money every month than how they're doing business currently.

EGreg4• 3 years ago

But aren't people complaining about the status quo, and RedHat infringing on open source rights?

With the utility tokens approach, they wouldn't need to restrict those rights. I guess that's the point. Whether the people are complaining about Google, Apple, Reddit, Twitter or any number of corporations, it's like, they have no solutions other than 1) complaining, 2) complaining to the government, but regardless of that, anything related to Web3 is dismissed out of hand, leaving no viable alternative solutions at all. I don't think "the status quo" is what people have in mind as a solution when they are complaining.

doctorpangloss• 3 years ago

IP protection is driven by $$$ and norms.

Non-S&P500 corporations routinely violate open source licenses a myriad of ways.

If you license something as AGPLv3, Amazon, Microsoft and Google, among other S&P500s, will not integrate it into their service offerings.

Sherlocking happens to everyone big and small. If I work at Microsoft and see AppGet and make WinGet, what can the author do?

Microsoft will pay someone to reimplement X in C#, Google in GoLang, Apple in Swift, etc. etc. These aren't clean room implementations, but this is how they can consume code that is valuable to them.

If you have a speculative meeting with Google about working together, they may engage the quota-driven attorney to patent your work anyway (https://patentpandas.org/stories/company-patented-my-idea).

Let's say you contract to do work for Microsoft as a vendor, but you have "background technologies." That's fine, so you own the copyright to the code. If you make something innovative, your partner at Microsoft - some engineer or PM or whatever - will engage their quota-driven attorney to patent it. So even if contract X says you own the copyright to the code, they lie (by omission) and patent anything interesting anyway.

End users reading HN routinely violate copyright, EULAs, etc. I mean they believe in the rights of the author for AI generated art sometimes, do-not-train robots.txts, and then immediately use a paywall bypass or archive.lol to read an article written by a real human being. They complain about giant corporations violating these GPL provisions and then they go and pirate a video game, a movie, an anime, etc.

What is the cultural norm for stuff you put out there for the public on the Internet? It seems to be, tough cookie! If you purposefully put your stuff on the Internet (as opposed to someone buying something off X and pirating it), you've conceded: "If you have more money than me and if you never want to work with me again, I guess you can do whatever the hell you want."

There's an IP law crisis. We've totally abrogated IP law to capitalism. HN is part of the problem, people talking about laws, contracts, etc. that they themselves were routinely violate from Napster to What.cd, ad blockers, paywall bypassing like Archive.lol, etc. HN users excuse themselves just because the law says one thing, but is unenforceable unless you have a ton of money or something the counterparty has to lose, so you're going to do the norm, you're going to do the thing that you like that makes sense to you.

Nobody forces you to use RHEL or Rocky Linux. You can simply ignore this whole drama in this particular product category. But eventually, the giant corporations will simply copy your code and use it, and even if you have an open and shut case, you won't be able to afford a lawyer, you'll have to go beg. You'll get represented by the Berkman center for free, and you'll still lose. Something's gotta change.

translucyd• 3 years ago

I wholeheartedly agree with the IP crisis.

Maybe we are seeing that, in the end of the day, who was indirectly paying for open source was the government by offering low interest rates so companies could have some space to spare developers?

Why the Open Source is in crisis right now if thats not the case?

redox993• 3 years ago

I generally just use MIT and don't care about what others do with my code.

But for a more commercial project I'd probably use a dual license, AGPL + commercial license. Kind of like Qt.

linuxftw5• 3 years ago

Red Hat always planned to do this. They were huge proponents of the GPL Cooperation Commitment [1], and persuaded lots of gullible developers to irrevocably sign over their rights.

1: https://gplcc.github.io/gplcc/

bragr2• 3 years ago

That really has no bearing here because regardless of who holds the copyright, what they are doing is permissible under the GPL.

jzb9• 3 years ago

AFAIK this does not sign over any rights. It simply says that the signees support a "cure" period for GPL violations like the GPLv3 has.

This wouldn't help Red Hat much if a rights holder decided that Red Hat was violating the GPL. At worst, or best, it would give Red Hat a little more time to "cure" its violation. It's not a permanent shield against being sued or having rights rescinded for GPL violation.

So - if somebody signed this and decided to talk to Red Hat and Red Hat didn't want to change its EULA or whatever, then they can go ahead and sue or formally rescind Red Hat's GPL rights. (As I understand it. Standard disclaimer that I am not a lawyer, etc.)

linuxftw5• 3 years ago

Creating additional barriers to rights holders to bring suit can only benefit the entity infringing. Why should the rights holder need to promise anything? Release the software under the rights or face termination of the license as they see fit? If you want back in, bring your checkbook.

ilc2• 3 years ago

This is not the worst of what Red Hat has done.

https://openinventionnetwork.com/ is #1 on my list.

... Why? Because instead of supporting all FOSS systems. It is Linux only. Thus locking the whole patent protection eco-system they created onto Linux, the platform they created.

seabass-labrax• 3 years ago

It is not 'Linux only' like you or I would understand it. They have an extremely broad definition of the 'Linux System' which includes thousands of programs:

https://openinventionnetwork.com/linux-system/

klyrs• 3 years ago

The Software Conservancy analysis summarized the conundrum as a pick-your-poison scenario: “In essence, Red Hat requires their customers to choose between (a) their software freedom and rights, and (b) remaining a Red Hat customer.”

The community may be large enough to end-run this. Every month, a new subscriber gets the source code, publishes it, and yeets their subscription. Or, if I'm reading this right, they cancel their subscription so they are no longer under its T&C, and then publish the code.

phpisthebest3• 3 years ago

I think Rocky's Linux propose solution of using AWS Instances is probably the best path. Unless RHEL wants to stop allowing RHEL Licensed Instances from being spun up by AWS Customers and instead having to have people "bring their own license" to AWS which would likely hurt their revenue far more than anything Rock or Alma would have

fragmede4• 3 years ago

Hell, someone publish a script up on GitHub to automate the whole process.

nocoiner2• 3 years ago

In at least a couple places, the article says what Red Hat is doing is “technically legal” or “technically in compliance” with the GPL.

I don’t find it very useful or enlightening when people start talking about “intention” in this context. If you intend for some particular outcome to happen, you really need to make sure that it’s written into the license! That’s what licenses and contracts and every annoying legal-type thing that exists are for!

On a related topic: Taking a quick scan of GPLv2, this doesn’t even seem to grossly offend the principles or intent of the license - am I reading it wrong, or, when it comes to appropriately distributed software (i.e., bearing notice, license terms, copyright, disclaimer, etc.), it seems to say pretty clearly that source only need to be provided to recipients of the modified program? I guess there’s some ambiguity about what 2(b) could mean?

jzb9• 3 years ago

You're not reading it wrong. The popular understanding of the GPL vs. the actual text of the GPL are two extremely different things.

Red Hat is far from alone in this. If I'm not mistaken, there's a whole cottage industry of WordPress plugin and theme developers who use basically this model. The plugin or theme is GPL'ed because it depends on WordPress, which is GPLed. But they gate the software and require payment to get it. They may also have an agreement that sets out a limit on redistribution for access - if you buy the theme or plugin from them and then set about redistributing it, they're not going to take your money in the future.

I can't think of any good way to close the "loophole" here in a GPL-type license that doesn't essentially force a developer to distribute to anybody they've ever done business with, forever. Any language that would force Red Hat to keep its subscription with an "offending" customer would also tie their hands for cutting off access for other reasons -- because who wouldn't claim that the reason Red Hat cut the subscription was over distribution?

madeofpalk• 3 years ago

What's the loophole? This is working exactly as intended, no?

GPL is to grant the user of software freedoms. Free as in freedoms, not beer. It's origin was from the user of a printer driver being frustrated they couldn't debug and fix an issue.

invalidator• 3 years ago

They are providing the source as required. However, a key part of the GPL is that RH's customers should also be able to redistribute the source to anyone else, and RH is preventing that through contract law.

jaywalk• 3 years ago

They are, of course, always free to distribute the source to anyone else. RedHat cannot stop that. But if they do distribute the source to anyone else, RedHat is free to stop taking their money and not provide the software and source code to them in the future.

It's shitty, but I can't see any realistic way to close this loophole.

phpisthebest3• 3 years ago

>I don’t find it very useful or enlightening when people start

Equally, I dont find it very useful or enlightening when people point out the obvious while ignoring intent completely.

While I agree with some of your premise, nothing is ever perfect, and the interpretation of legal agreements is why many lawyers make lots of money, and why we have 10's of thousands of people employed in the legal profession

So simply saying "will if you wanted X you should have written it down" is a simplistic take on a complex problem. If we could do that we would not have law suits debating the details of contract, nor would we have countless unintended consequences from various laws passed by the various legislative bodies

Taking a quick scan of GPLv2, this doesn’t even seem to grossly offend the principles or intent of the license -

It does in fact offend the principles which si why GPLv3 was created, and AGPL and other versions of the license to counter some of the "holes" companies like RedHat exploit in GPLv2.

Linux however has always and likely always will resist moving to GPLv3

fragmede4• 3 years ago

It's because when writing a contract, you can't consider all of the corner cases like you might be able to with code. The intention is that to be sharing stuff, where "sharing" and "stuff" is, unfortunately, poorly defined. The feeling is that Red Hat is going against the spirit of the GPLv2 because they're penalizing people for sharing.

Yes, the legal system involves a bunch of minutiae so that a good contract would define "sharing" and "stuff" explicitly but for people that don't want to be lawyers, it is an "annoying legal-type thing" that they really don't want to deal with. It forms opinions for people about the law when the law clashes with the intention of it, so it's useful for others.

michaelmrose• 3 years ago

The intention is explicitly and obviously that additional restrictions not be placed on these downstream users. The fact that you are only required to transmit to the entire universe is merely limiting the burden placed upon you not delineation of the limit of who can access the source.

If you can't explicitly tell foo they can't do bar but you ensure for practical purposes that they can't use the the expensive thing they paid for and must incur potentially millions in migration costs you are at least in violation of the spirit of the license.

throwaway5752• 3 years ago

IBM is shitting the bed so badly here.

It was always going to happen. The value of RHEL and goodwill associated with it doesn't clearly flow through to the bottom line, so they were always going kill that golden goose because that is who IBM is. It's sad to watch, though.

Havoc• 3 years ago

Just add a redhat clause to it :p

Bit like Facebook just did with Llama

Meta will open source LLaMa 2, enabling developers to access it freely, with a license requirement for companies with 700 million MAUs.

dmitrygr• 3 years ago

Wait till you hear about Qualcomm. “Yes it is gpl but your contract with us states that you agree to never ask for source”

circuit104• 3 years ago

Is that legal?

wmf3• 3 years ago

No, but the entire Android ecosystem will collapse if it's challenged, so...

indigodaddy5• 3 years ago

“The Software Conservancy analysis summarized the conundrum as a pick-your-poison scenario: “In essence, Red Hat requires their customers to choose between (a) their software freedom and rights, and (b) remaining a Red Hat customer.” End-users are allowed to exercise their right to redistribute the code but if they do, they face the consequence of Red Hat canceling their subscription and being cut off from future versions of the software and Red Hat services.”

—- This is the key issue imo. How can you be in compliance with “..if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have.”

… if you make non-redistribution a requirement to even get access to begin with..?

I’m sure I’m misunderstanding though at some level

soneil• 3 years ago

The theory as I understand it is that you have all the expected rights to the binaries you've been provided. But the only thing compelling redhat to provide you future binaries is your contract with them - and exercising those rights jeopardises that contract.

Which technically works because the GPL only concerns the software you've received - it does not concern nor compel the software you've yet you receive.

indigodaddy5• 3 years ago

So to receive a product where the GPL dictates you have full right to redistribute that product, you must first enter into a (sub?)contract that says you cannot redistribute it…

If that’s not one hell of an ingenious loophole, I don’t know what is..

hughw• 3 years ago

Some lawyers figured out how to legally steal IP from all the creators who have contributed to Linux.

acters• 3 years ago

My biggest question is how they are going to police this. Will each download contain hidden flags to mark it as your account? How will they be able to discern what account it came from? Sounds like a nightmare to control and may end up costing them more in the long run.

spiffytech• 3 years ago

This makes me think of the React patent license issue from some years ago.

React was licensed under BSD, but had a patent license that many interpreted as saying if Facebook sued you (among other things) you'd lose rights to any Facebook patents, including any that applied to React. Having rights under the BSD license didn't override that.

Different situation, but same vibe.

dralley6• 3 years ago

Not really the same. Red Hat isn't revoking your ability to use the software you've already received. There's no "kill switch" for RHEL nor does the contract remove your legal rights to use the software you have received.

However, you do lose the right to access Red Hat-provided services, including the software update repositories, should you break the contract.

My understanding of the React license is that it remove[d] your legal rights to use React in any form, immediately, if you sue Facebook for Patent infringement. That's significantly harsher.

insanitybit8• 3 years ago

You have the right to distribute the code. You don't have a right to be a RHEL customer.

derekp7• 3 years ago

Just like there is a federal law that says you have a write to receive over the air communications, yet there are some states that stop you from driving while receiving those radio communications (i.e., they make radar detectors illegal in the car). The prohibition isn't on using a radar detector (you can walk around all you want with one), but against driving with one.

m4632• 3 years ago

What I think was really happening was that customers who subscribed were:

- subscription for some core systems

- centos elsewhere

I suspect redhat is just going to continue to bleed customers.

jeroenhd• 3 years ago

GPL only provides you rights and freedoms as a customer/end user. Companies are free to choose who their customers/end users are.

IBM can make sure Alma and Rocky aren't their customers, don't legitimately receive the binaries, and therefore under GPL don't have the rights to the source code.

josho• 3 years ago

I can't imagine this holding up in court.

By analogy, it sounds like I give you the right to walk across a line, but I also have the right to shoot anyone that crosses the line. This has the net effect that you effectively are not allowed to cross the line.

jzb9• 3 years ago

No. The analogy here is this: Every time I hand you your monthly subscription of software, you can do anything allowed by the GPL. However, if you threaten my business, I can stop your monthly subscription.

You have the GPL rights for everything I've given you. I don't have to continue to convey the rights to new things to you if I don't like how you use them.

If Red Hat were selling GPL'ed software for navigation systems to a supplier in Country A and it turned out that they were re-distributing that software to Country B to bomb Country C, nobody would blink if Red Hat refused to stop doing business with that supplier. The imaginary obligations that people have invented around the GPL wouldn't allow Red Hat to discontinue that relationship.

Y_Y3• 3 years ago

No.

frognumber• 3 years ago

That's not quite how (US) courts work. In the US, licenses and contracts aren't read as by a computer (as coders are used to writing and reading) but by intent. You can follow the letter and be in violation if you intentionally violate the spirit, and vice-versa.

My read is that Red Hat is probably not in compliance, although the second piece of contract law is recourse and damages. It's not clear it's worth anyone's time to prove Red Hat is not in compliance.

Note that there are hundreds of jurisdictions in the world. Red Hat is probably in compliance in most statutory law jurisdictions, at the edge in common law ones, and I can't speak for others.

That's an interesting line to walk. GPL is global, and Red Hat distributes software developed in hundreds of jurisdictions. Any of those software authors could sue in local courts. Most would lose. Some would win.

tenken• 3 years ago

To me it seems similar to sharing Netflix account passwords... which Netflix is now cracking down on.

You're allowed to use the service/software but not allowed to take away new business clients from us by re-sharing the source yourself.

the_gipsy• 3 years ago

if you threaten my business, I can stop your monthly subscription.

That business is based on violating a license.

circuit104• 3 years ago

I guess it’s more like if you cross the line you can’t go to the place where the line is again, which isn’t that much better but it does mean people can legally redistribute it if they are willing to not get any future releases

mrd3v0• 3 years ago

It's like saying you have freedom of (let's say speech) but not freedom of consequences, so the government will still discriminate against you.

It shouldn't hold up on court and hopefully it won't.

iraqmtpizza2• 3 years ago

there is no equal protection clause in the GPL

if some users are given access to future products based on good behavior, that doesn't mean anything legally

topspin• 3 years ago

I can't imagine this holding up in court.

My imagination has no difficulty with that at all. US courts have a great deal of respect for legal contracts. Unless you can identify a conflict between subscription terms and GPL terms the former probably will survive a court challenge.

CrLf• 3 years ago

Honestly, the more reactions I see from certain parts of the community, the more I agree with Red Hat’s decision. And I started from thinking it was a bad move.

Also, see Jon “maddog” Hall’s take from a few days ago:

https://www.lpi.org/blog/2023/07/30/ibm-red-hat-and-free-sof...

pjmlp• 3 years ago

I agreed with it since the beginning, as Jon “maddog” Hall states, there are plenty of distributions out there.

Thanks for pointing out his take.

saltcured• 3 years ago

I think many of us have taken for granted a very broad idea of "the spirit of free software" because of overlapping practices over the past few decades. But I'm not sure these are actually the "intent" of GPLv2, which I think would mean what Stallman et. al were advocating back then.

The GPLv2 is pretty clear about allowing for "hostile" forks, and not about mandating communal behavior from everyone. That is particularly clear in how it offers multiple methods to satisfy obligations to redistribute sources. A vendor like Red Hat can choose whether to make sources generally available to the public or to only respond to requests for sources from their own licensed users. They are moving from the first method to the second. The GPLv2 also doesn't say anything about obligations to receive patches nor offer maintenance or future versions of anything.

I think we've all enjoyed a luxury of people acting beyond the actual license obligations. The voluntary effort to contribute to a communal codebase and broadly share a stream of maintenance releases is very nice. But licensing does not compel all this voluntary effort. I think it is in Red Hat's rights to try to capture some of this business value that has been left on the table, even though I selfishly hope that they will either stub their toes and reverse course, or get out-competed by a new benevolent vendor who sees an opportunity in taking over such a communal role.

mistrial92• 3 years ago

I think we've all enjoyed a luxury of people acting beyond the actual license obligations

and, the largest and most-profitable companies on Earth today have also enjoyed a luxury beyond the actual license obligations.

To "pile on" .. it is not that "the well is running dry".. rather it is an explicit business objective to restrict the distribution of SECURITY UPDATES and in a parallel move, require those security updates to continue to operate with money doing X-y-z. Its not secret.

freedomben3• 3 years ago

The GPL is very clear that the software does not come with a warranty or any guarantees of fitness for any purpose. The customer has the code, they are free to fix any bugs or security holes that affect them, but they are not entitled to have other people do that work for them for free.

comex• 3 years ago

But I'm not sure these are actually the "intent" of GPLv2, which I think would mean what Stallman et. al were advocating back then.

I don't buy it. If you think about the commercial Unix systems in the 80's that GNU was started as an alternative to, the threat to cut off a customer from all future updates would have been just as prohibitive as it is with Red Hat today. Admittedly, with security being more important now than it was then, it's more critical now to get a steady stream of minor security updates. But being cut off from major updates is prohibitive too, given that most customers expect to stay on the system for years, both now and then. And those commercial Unixes were less compatible with each other than modern Linux distros are with each other, so the switching cost would have been higher. (Disclaimer: I wasn't around in the 80's; this is based on what I've gathered rather than personal knowledge.)

Given that context, let's look at Stallman's definition of free software from 1987, four years before GPLv2: [1]

The word "free" in [the Free Software Foundation's] name does not refer to price; it refers to freedom. First, the freedom to copy a program and redistribute it to your neighbors, so that they can use it as well as you. Second, the freedom to change a program, so that you can control it instead of it controlling you; for this, the source code must be made available to you.

Here is Stallman waxing poetic on the same concept in 2001 (so after GPLv2, but I think it's fair to say his thinking hasn't changed much): [2]

A program is free software for you, a particular user, if you have the following freedoms:
[..]
Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of the program.
[..]
Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn, sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of sharing software. Friends share with each other. Friends help each other. This is the nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit of goodwill -- the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily -- is society's most important resource. It makes the difference between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.

Do you really think the person who wrote this would have been satisfied with 'you can technically share the code with your neighbor, but only if you are ready to immediately migrate away from said code because you can no longer receive updates'?

[1] https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull3.html

[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt

brnt2• 3 years ago

Please stop reinforcing the Red Hat ecosystem by using Red Hat derived distros.

mistrial92• 3 years ago

the people reading this are not the people making those decisions. Management uses this product as a required element in business contracts, those requirements include security updates. The security updates are not going to be available the day management stops paying. It is explicit.

brnt2• 3 years ago

Maybe. I still see way too much enthusiasm for all these new CentOS replacements in these circles. Those projects are all phenomenally bad ideas and everyone should understand that. People who're convinced in board rooms are getting RHEL anyway, they've little interest in the 'CentOS community'.

infamouscow• 3 years ago

I work at a stealth mode database startup. We are not prioritizing RHEL support because of their business decision.

JohnFen• 3 years ago

All of this nonsense is excellent reason to avoid using Red Hat, at least outside of a business context. They are the Microsoft of the Linux world.

Animats• 3 years ago

This might be handled via a secondary market in abandoned Red Hat licenses. Offer a nominal amount every few months for a Red Hat customer that's leaving Red Hat. Have them obtain the source, release it, and let their license expire. Talk to someone who liquidates the IP of failed startups. "Localliquidators.com" is in that business. They probably have some license rights available.

Somebody should do this at least once.

insanitybit8• 3 years ago

This is nothing new and it's perfectly compliant with GPLv2.

taylodl• 3 years ago

IBM just doing what IBM does - sleaze.

stcroixx• 3 years ago

s/RedHat/IBM - Red Hat the name is just a smoke screen now.

lightlyused• 3 years ago

I hope this makes the RedHat based distros less popular in the long term. We need to get out from under their shadow (and IBMs).

ataylor284_• 3 years ago

This is part of an emerging trend that's a threat to the current symbiosis between open source communities their commercial sponsors.

Many of these companies have nurtured a lot of goodwill with the community and built successful businesses around enterprise customers. Once they're entrenched in the enterprise software business, there is value to be had by cashing in that goodwill and maximizing shareholder value. Even if their current leadership is unwilling to move in this direction, there are plenty of existing enterprise computing companies (e.g. IBM) and private equity firms who will.

mindslight• 3 years ago

This idea isn't new. Does nobody remember Sveasoft? They tried this with regards to alternative WRT54G firmware, back when that was a thing. They ended up failing in the market, to the point that seemingly nobody even remembers the attempt.

Redhat seems to be betting on their size for their staying power. But that size also means there is much more demand for third parties to route around their attempt at creating an inefficient market speedbump. For example, that proposed solution of subscribing to Redhat through a cloud provider, then distributing the source code seems quite straightforward. If they tighten up on that, it would only seem to take a handful of small subscribers comparing the source code they receive to make sure there is no steganographic watermark, and then distributing source through an unrelated entity without fear of reprisal.

I'm sure they will succeed at creating some level of speed bump for companies that want things to just work, but I'd say that ultimately this is just going to lead to another cycle of users moving to the new libre thing, and then Redhat needing to pay to reacquire those customers later.

fatfingerd• 3 years ago

How does one adjust an open source license to make RedHat's redistribution illegal without interfering with distributions that follow the GPL intent?

fragmede4• 3 years ago

Where is Oracle in all this? Oracle Linux is a RedHat clone and they sell support contacts and everything that businesses like.

dsr_2• 3 years ago

GPL v2 part 6:

You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

I think it can be reasonably argued that a contract designed to defeat the intent of the license is "a further restriction".

The correct remedy is not to require Red Hat to restore their former client's contract.

The correct remedy is that Red Hat, and thus IBM, is no longer licensed to use GPL v2 software.

nocoiner2• 3 years ago

OK. Let’s say Red Hat Linux Distributors Inc. is the software licensor. And Red Hat Support LLC is the support provider. RHLDI distributes software (and source) in compliance with GPLv2. RHSLLC has a provision in its contract that a support customer may not re-distribute any source that it receives from RHLDI.

Where’s the breach of the GPL? The reference to “You” in that instance, about not being able to impose additional restrictions, would have to be give additional words and meaning not present in the contract for that line to mean what you say it means.

If that’s what the license is supposed to prevent, it really needs to be written in a way that clearly addresses this fact pattern.

dsr_2• 3 years ago

No, you're missing the point.

The Linux Kernel is the big GPL v2 fish. It's not a Red Hat licensing to Red Hat situation.

kazinator• 3 years ago

There is no circumvention of the GPL going on, or any loophole in the license being exploited.

It's basically "I'm only going to be your friend and provide you with free software with my cool and useful modifications if you don't redistribute it to your other friends. (Which you're allowed to do, but I just won't be your if I catch you doing that, and won't give you any more)."

There isn't anything the GPL can do about that, without becoming a crazy non-free license. It's entirely out of its scope.

The behavior doesn't step on any user rights, because:

1. It doesn't remove their rights to what they already have (software they have downloaded under the Subscription Agreement).

2. Users do not have a right to enter into or remain in a Subscription Agreement with Red Hat; there is no such right.

3. People have a right to refuse to redistribute something. If you have some GPLed program I want, and I ask for it, you can say no. If you say yes to giving me binaries, then you can't say no to giving the source (for just that specific version of those binaries and nothing more).

4. People have access to the original software; they can make their own distribution from scratch to compete with Red Hat.

There is no intent in the GPL whatsoever to prevent Red Hat's behavior; there is no wording that could even remotely have that interpretation.

The person who came up with the license probably disagrees with the behavior, but he didn't put anything in the license to prevent it and probably wouldn't find it a good idea to try to use a copyright license to try to do that.

RedHat found a way to get around the GPLv2 license intention with contract law

Related Stories