this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2023
76 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37705 readers
332 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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:
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:
....aaand an additional excerpt which disallows Red Hat's restrictions:
(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: