Technology

37720 readers

545 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

Los@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

Red Hat strikes a crushing blow against RHEL downstreams | The Register (www.theregister.com)

submitted 1 year ago by aranym@lemmy.name to c/technology@beehaw.org

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A superficially modest blog post from a senior Hatter announces that going forward, the company will only publish the source code of its CentOS Stream product to the world. In other words, only paying customers will be able to obtain the source code to Red Hat Enterprise Linux… And under the terms of their contracts with the Hat, that means that they can't publish it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] livingcoder@lemmy.austinwadeheller.com 5 points 1 year ago (16 children)

How does this work with the code license? If this is all fine, doesn't this mean that we should be avoiding the kind of license they're using in the future?

[–] aranym@lemmy.name 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Most of their stuff is under the GPL. It's a GPL violation to not allow their customers to share the source. I'm guessing they'll reverse this decision (or selectively release everything they're obligated to) within a week.

[–] SemioticStandard@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have to image that their fleet of attorneys would have thought of this before hand.

[–] aranym@lemmy.name 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I was confused they didn't think of this either, but the language in the license is very clear. I see no way it cannot be infringing - the only way you can be restricted from redistributing GPLv3'd source is if you publish it incorrectly.

That's ignoring the variety of other OSS licenses used for software in their repositories, many of which have similar (or even broader) redistribution rights.

Relevant GPLv3 language:

Section 4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

"You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program."


Section 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.

"You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.
b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact all notices”.
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so."

[–] aranym@lemmy.name 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Another excerpt from the GPLv3 that explicitly describes and disallows what Red Hat is doing - you are explicitly not allowed to add any restrictions when you redistribute GPLv3 licensed software:

If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.

....aaand an additional excerpt which disallows Red Hat's restrictions:

Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License.

(note: "original licensors" is not Red Hat regarding any software other than their own. Red Hat cannot change or infringe upon rights received from upstream.)

and ANOTHER excerpt:

If you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.

[–] chameleon@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

SF Conservancy analyzed this and found that it's probably legally OK, if very much on the edge of what's allowed. RH doesn't sue you for redistribution or anything, they 'just' terminate the contract and the GPL doesn't force anyone to deal with anyone. It's the same stupid model grsecurity applied some years ago.

But regardless of legality, morally, this is just completely and utterly wrong. I'm not totally surprised post-IBM Red Hat went in this direction, but I'm disappointed and angry anyway.

[–] aranym@lemmy.name 3 points 1 year ago

I find it interesting that even the conservancy can't really say whether or not it's OK legally definitively. Here's hoping someone still takes them to court over this, wins, and sets precedence that it's a violation of the GPL (extremely unlikely, but a guy can dream)

I remember people talking about potential scenarios very similar to this when Red Hat was acquired. They were right.

[–] aard@kyu.de 1 points 1 year ago

The problem here is not the source of the applications, but the source of the package build scripts - which in big parts are RedHat property.

RedHat must provide you the sources - but for that it is sufficient to give you the source of whatever is packaged. In the past commercial distributions just fulfilled that requirement by dumping source packages, which have the source as well as the scripts required to build binary packages. They do not have to provide you with the build scripts.

The problem with RedHat is that many companies certify their stuff to work on RedHat - so for that to work without running into the occasional obscure problem you need to build the sources the exact same way as RedHat is doing. That's what CentOS used to do until version 7, and that's what currently some other distributions are doing. Without the build scripts it'll be next to impossible to do that - you'd pretty much have to duplicate the RedHat engineering team. But it is completely legal, as they own the scripts, and since they're completely separate from the application itself don't have to be GPL.

load more comments (12 replies)