Not surprising that RHEL is now trashing every FLOSS license it’s beholden to. They’ve violated the licenses and I genuinely someone over at GNU or something gets to goosing them with lawyers.
Did they? Because as far as I know they’re complying with the GPL and other licenses, since everybody that gets their RHEL license (and the software/binaries) also gets the sources. Or am I mistaken?
I don’t think the license says ‘grant everybody a copy of your source code’, only the ones that actually bought access to the binaries RHEL provides
That’s fine, it’s the threats about terminating support agreements or dev accounts if you redistribute the source code that’s stepping really close or over the line. The license gives you the right (and in some cases the responsibility) to redistribute.
Not surprising that RHEL is now trashing every FLOSS license it’s beholden to. They’ve violated the licenses and I genuinely someone over at GNU or something gets to goosing them with lawyers.
Did they? Because as far as I know they’re complying with the GPL and other licenses, since everybody that gets their RHEL license (and the software/binaries) also gets the sources. Or am I mistaken?
I don’t think the license says ‘grant everybody a copy of your source code’, only the ones that actually bought access to the binaries RHEL provides
That’s fine, it’s the threats about terminating support agreements or dev accounts if you redistribute the source code that’s stepping really close or over the line. The license gives you the right (and in some cases the responsibility) to redistribute.
Yes. It seems like it would be illegal to make someone sign something that would be violated if you exercise the rights of the license.
Would they be able to make you sign something that says you are not going to ask for the source code?