I’m aware I’d be restricted from future binary updates. But my point goes to what the legal definition of what a “restriction” is in this context. The language in this sentence to me is plain, “You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein.” RH is attempting to limit my behavior by imposing contractual penalties for exercising rights granted under the GPL. Those penalties being imposed are not just restricting access to future binary updates, but forfeiting all current granted privileges and monies already paid under contract, and the termination of that contract. I would consider that a “restriction”, but IANAL either.
I see how it could be interpreted as that now, but I still disagree. To say that restrictions also include the consequences of doing some thing (e.g. you receive no further binaries) implies to me that the definition would be completely up to the user. One might intentionally break the contract to obtain a one-time copy that they weren’t technically “restricted” from getting. This seems rife with ambiguouity, which from my understanding would not work well in court. In contrast, “ability to copy/distribute/modify this snapshot of code regardless of what happens afterwards” remains a guarantee.
It has been a day since I last replied, and I am still not a lawyer. I absolutely agree that input from the FSF or a GPL-specialized lawyer would be insightful.
I’m not sure you said here what you mean to? I certainly still have access to the binaries I already downloaded. After all, they’re still running on my box! And also under the RHEL contract (old or new), I’m still able to run those binaries indefinitely. But that means I’m also still entitled to the source from RH for those installed binaries since they were originally distributed and installed by RH under the terms of the GPL.
I thought you’d still have access to the source for the binaries on your box, just that you couldn’t ask for the source of newer binaries since they would have already stopped supplying those. I could also be misunderstanding how Red Hat’s systems work.
But out of all this, my biggest concern of all this by far is the can of worms RH is opening. What’s going to happen when other even less scrupulous companies attempt to run with this possible GPL loophole RH is trying to bust open?
Alex makes points I would make regarding this - I don’t see any loopholes that would violate the four freedoms. At no point would you be unable to copy, distribute, or modify code for the binaries that you have.
In the event that I’m wrong, surely the FSF would be able to handle this and find a solution if they consider it a problem; perhaps in the form of a GPLv4?
Thanks, I appreciate your insights. Was surprised that it’s not new from Red Hat.
To say that restrictions also include the consequences of doing some thing (e.g. you receive no further binaries) implies to me that the definition would be completely up to the user.
I would say it’s up to a court, not a user, to decide whether or not in the context contract law if those “consequences” are also “restrictions”.
Contract law is all about defining actions and the consequences of what happens when those actions are taken or not taken. What’s the point of having a granted right if I can’t exercise it without a significant, immediate, and direct penalty imposed by the grantor? I would say that’s no longer a right.
Section 6 is not just about a grantor taking away any of the four rights, but also about stopping the grantor imposing any further restrictions on the exercise of those rights granted by the GPL. Otherwise, if section 6 was just to protect those four rights by themselves, why wouldn’t it just simply say, “The rights granted herein to the recipients, all or in part, may not be revoked under any conditions by the licensor.”?
If the language of section 6 were the above alternative, I’d certainly be taking your position. But RH isn’t revoking those rights, they are attempting to restrict the exercise of them using penalties, what I believe section 6 is directly trying to prevent. As I mentioned elsewhere, those penalties go way beyond just disabling access to potential future versions of software packages and their matching source. (If that were just the case, I’d also be inclined to agree with your position that losing potential future access by itself would arguably not be a restriction.)
This seems rife with ambiguouity, which from my understanding would not work well in court. In contrast, “ability to copy/distribute/modify this snapshot of code regardless of what happens afterwards” remains a guarantee.
I would say its ambiguous to us (without legal training), but I’d bet the language used in the GPL license is pretty clear to a contract lawyer and would have some legal precedence as well. Lawyers tend to avoid using words and phrases without established precedence behind them.
Back in 1990-1991, I was working for a company that was unhappy shipping its commercial software compiled with GCC under the language of the GPLv1. I was on the team (engineering side) that worked with RMS and his legal team to craft the GPLv2 and LGPL as replacements for the GPLv1 that eventually made everyone involved happy. I wasn’t directly involved, but was on the periphery and got to see a lot of the proposed language and reasoning behind it being raised and discussed on both sides. Unfortunately, I don’t remember any of it after all this time. But I do remember just how much effort went into practically every word that was (and was not) in that license. That experience though led me to being a GPL supporter for the last 30 years.
I don’t see any loopholes that would violate the four freedoms. At no point would you be unable to copy, distribute, or modify code for the binaries that you have.
[…]
I thought you’d still have access to the source for the binaries on your box, just that you couldn’t ask for the source of newer binaries since they would have already stopped supplying those. I could also be misunderstanding how Red Hat’s systems work.
Yes, that’s a problem. Without your now deleted account, you would lose access the matching source. With RH systems, you have to have a valid, authorized, and logged-in RH account to access the source for a given installed binary package.
As mentioned elsewhere, RH could plug this problem by offering to allow you to request the source for those packages outside of the normal channels such as a charged service for mailing you a DVD or USB stick. But as far as I know, they have not offered this service, hence a GPL violation with their current approach of cancelling your account.
I don’t see any loopholes that would violate the four freedoms. At no point would you be unable to copy, distribute, or modify code for the binaries that you have.
It’s not just the four freedoms the GPL protects, but the exercise of them. Maybe there’s a chance I’ve convinced you a little more of the position I have. :) At least I hope you more clearly see it.
Thanks, I appreciate your insights. Was surprised that it’s not new from Red Hat.
And for yours as well.
IBM deserves a lot of blame for a lot of things, but on this one issue, they don’t.
I see how it could be interpreted as that now, but I still disagree. To say that restrictions also include the consequences of doing some thing (e.g. you receive no further binaries) implies to me that the definition would be completely up to the user. One might intentionally break the contract to obtain a one-time copy that they weren’t technically “restricted” from getting. This seems rife with ambiguouity, which from my understanding would not work well in court. In contrast, “ability to copy/distribute/modify this snapshot of code regardless of what happens afterwards” remains a guarantee.
It has been a day since I last replied, and I am still not a lawyer. I absolutely agree that input from the FSF or a GPL-specialized lawyer would be insightful.
I thought you’d still have access to the source for the binaries on your box, just that you couldn’t ask for the source of newer binaries since they would have already stopped supplying those. I could also be misunderstanding how Red Hat’s systems work.
Alex makes points I would make regarding this - I don’t see any loopholes that would violate the four freedoms. At no point would you be unable to copy, distribute, or modify code for the binaries that you have.
In the event that I’m wrong, surely the FSF would be able to handle this and find a solution if they consider it a problem; perhaps in the form of a GPLv4?
Thanks, I appreciate your insights. Was surprised that it’s not new from Red Hat.
I would say it’s up to a court, not a user, to decide whether or not in the context contract law if those “consequences” are also “restrictions”.
Contract law is all about defining actions and the consequences of what happens when those actions are taken or not taken. What’s the point of having a granted right if I can’t exercise it without a significant, immediate, and direct penalty imposed by the grantor? I would say that’s no longer a right.
Section 6 is not just about a grantor taking away any of the four rights, but also about stopping the grantor imposing any further restrictions on the exercise of those rights granted by the GPL. Otherwise, if section 6 was just to protect those four rights by themselves, why wouldn’t it just simply say, “The rights granted herein to the recipients, all or in part, may not be revoked under any conditions by the licensor.”?
If the language of section 6 were the above alternative, I’d certainly be taking your position. But RH isn’t revoking those rights, they are attempting to restrict the exercise of them using penalties, what I believe section 6 is directly trying to prevent. As I mentioned elsewhere, those penalties go way beyond just disabling access to potential future versions of software packages and their matching source. (If that were just the case, I’d also be inclined to agree with your position that losing potential future access by itself would arguably not be a restriction.)
I would say its ambiguous to us (without legal training), but I’d bet the language used in the GPL license is pretty clear to a contract lawyer and would have some legal precedence as well. Lawyers tend to avoid using words and phrases without established precedence behind them.
Back in 1990-1991, I was working for a company that was unhappy shipping its commercial software compiled with GCC under the language of the GPLv1. I was on the team (engineering side) that worked with RMS and his legal team to craft the GPLv2 and LGPL as replacements for the GPLv1 that eventually made everyone involved happy. I wasn’t directly involved, but was on the periphery and got to see a lot of the proposed language and reasoning behind it being raised and discussed on both sides. Unfortunately, I don’t remember any of it after all this time. But I do remember just how much effort went into practically every word that was (and was not) in that license. That experience though led me to being a GPL supporter for the last 30 years.
Yes, that’s a problem. Without your now deleted account, you would lose access the matching source. With RH systems, you have to have a valid, authorized, and logged-in RH account to access the source for a given installed binary package.
As mentioned elsewhere, RH could plug this problem by offering to allow you to request the source for those packages outside of the normal channels such as a charged service for mailing you a DVD or USB stick. But as far as I know, they have not offered this service, hence a GPL violation with their current approach of cancelling your account.
It’s not just the four freedoms the GPL protects, but the exercise of them. Maybe there’s a chance I’ve convinced you a little more of the position I have. :) At least I hope you more clearly see it.
And for yours as well.
IBM deserves a lot of blame for a lot of things, but on this one issue, they don’t.