I admit I know nothing about what programs RedHat has contributed to, or what their plans are. I am only familiar with the GPL in general (I use arch, btw). So I tried to have Bing introduce me to the situation. The conversation got weird and maybe manipulative by Bing.
Can you explain to me why Bing is right and I am wrong?
It sounds like a brazen GPL violation. And if RedHat is allowed to deny a core feature of the GPL, the ability to redistribute, it will completely destroy the ability of any author to specify any license other than MIT. Perhaps Microsoft has that goal and forced Bing to support it.
Bing Chat is wrong. RHEL customers are legally allowed to share the code. What Red Had can do, and that has nothing to do with the GPL, is to end the contract with the customer who shared the code, thereby according to the GPL the customer also no longer has any right to access the code. The GPL only applies to software distribution, not contracts outside copyright law.
Edit: Red Hat is under no obligation to share non-copyleft code of which there is plenty in a Linux distribution but they do. Just look at Apple: Take plenty of FOSS code, give back only a fraction. It sucks but it’s legal. That’s also why Apple moved away from GPL software – can’t even bothered to ship BASH with macOS.
Yes. I just don’t know if it’s good to phrase it as “RHEL customers are legally allowed to share the code”, since as soon as they do it they won’t be allowed to be customers anymore lol (assuming Red Hat finds out)
It’s not good to phrase it the way Bing Chat does and claim that it’s illegal either.
Btw, I find it funny how short the memory of many users is. Canonical claims copyright for all compiled binaries of non-GPL code (this includes OpenSSL, Xorg, and Wayland, among many others): https://ubuntu.com/legal/intellectual-property-policy (“Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries.”)
Oh, I actually didn’t know about this! To be fair, I haven’t touched Ubuntu since I was like 14 (yeah, I have weird hobbies).
That’s the reason why Canonical forced out the Kubuntu maintainers who then went on to create KDE Neon. The IP Policy originally did not contain the sentence “This does not affect your rights under any open source licence applicable to any of the components of Ubuntu” which means that GPL’ed binaries were also covered by that and the Kubuntu maintainers openly said that this is illegal.
This created so much backlash to Canonical, they did not dare to actually enforce the policy but the policy is still there. So all the Mints, pop_OSes, etc. of the world who distribute unmodified Ubuntu binary packages of BSD/MIT-licensed code are technically in breach of Canonical’s IP Policy.
Then why isn’t Canonical taking action against those distros?
Maybe they have their hands full in making enemies by pushing Snaps. 🤣
If RedHat is serious, they can put watermarking/stenography on the code they give you. Might not be proof in court, but enough to figure you are the leaker.
legally allowed only means the state won’t regard it as a criminal act, so it won’t be prosecuted as a crime. You can still suffer from the consequences of legal behaviors.
This is a common point of speech protected by the first amendment of the US Constitution. Promoting white power is legal, but it may get you uninvited to any eating establishments in earshot.
Whether RedHat is violating the GPL by cancelling the contracts of customers who exercise their rights under the GPL is an open question. There certainly is not a consensus on this in the open source community, the Software Freedom Conservancy seems to lean toward the view that RedHat’s new policy is in violation - https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/
However the only way to find out is for someone to challenge RedHat in court. IANAL but if you could demonstrate in a court that RedHat has actually had a pattern of behavior where they are canceling contracts whenever people exercised their rights under the software license, I think you might have a pretty good case. IBM for their part has good lawyers and is basically saying bring it on, this is business.
RedHat telling customers they can only enter agreement with them if they don’t choose to use their rights is the same thing as denying their rights. That’s a mighty fine hair to split, but I understand something like that could be argued in court. I still feel this completely neuters the whole point of the GPL. Authors who chose the GPL did so with the clear expectation that redistribution would be paid forward. I hope FSF chooses to go to court over this.