An exceptionally well explained rant that I find myself in total agreement with.

  • weavejester@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem is that the GPL states:

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

    Red Hat are arguing that they are free to punish customers from exercising their rights under the GPL, and that punishment does not constitute a “restriction”, even though its done specifically to discourage people from exercising those rights. Whether Red Hat have found a loophole is something for the courts to decide, but it’s clearly against the intention and spirit of the GPL.

    • moon_crush@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s a fair point, and worthy of deliberation.

      However, I would continue to argue that if Redhat does not restrict parties’ rights to the source code they’ve been given, then they’ve satisfied the GPL.

      It is my understanding (at least initially) that the GPL was meant to solidify the end user’s rights to the software they have, so that they’re not left with an unfixable binary executable.

      And again, there are no rights granted by the GPL for FUTURE versions.