• federico3@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Terminating a support contract, in itself, is not a GPL violation. The restrictions only affects the ability to receive future updates.

    Edit: Red Hat indeed claims that no GPL violation is happening, yet they inform their customers that sharing updates leads to contract termination, which clearly breaches the GPL at least in spirit: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/

    • aport@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it depends on whether it’s considered an additional restriction on the recipient’s right to redistribute the software.

      Saying, “you can redistribute the software but you will face _____ penalty” seems like a gray area to me.

      • federico3@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Context is important. It’s possible that the software is distributed without any warning like that and that the termination of the support contract is done without citing the redistribution of previous versions as a reason. OTOH if the customers could prove that there’s widespread knowledge of the retaliatory termination that could be equivalent to a (non-written) restriction that is indeed incompatible with the GPL

        • aport@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes more details would be good.

          According to Alma Linux

          “the way we understand it today, Red Hat’s user interface agreements indicate that re-publishing sources acquired through the customer portal would be a violation of those agreements.”