Red Hat just erected a paywall in front of the source code to their Linux distribution.Are they burning bridges to the wider open source ecosystem?Referenced...
An exceptionally well explained rant that I find myself in total agreement with.
The people using RHEL aren’t using CentOS Stream, and they aren’t able to redistribute the actual software they are actively using. I don’t know how to state this any clearer.
Those snapshots are not CentOS Stream. You are not running CentOS Stream, in the state in which it is provided, when you run a RHEL release. They arent entirely separate, but that’s exaggerating the claim and not what I’m arguing. The people who are using RHEL as provided are not able to redistribute the thing which they are using.
Whether the GPL says the redistributed code has to be a bug-for-bug compatible copy of RHEL is up for lawyers to decide. In my mind, saying “I am not running Software Foobar, I am running Software Foobar released a few months ago” seems like a silly distinction in this case, especially when talking about the health of FOSS.
Once again, their adherence to the letter of the GPL is certainly up for debate, I said as much at the start.
Their violation of its intent, however, is not. They are putting up roadblocks, however trivial or insignificant you seem to believe they are, to limit your freedom in redistributing they code they are providing. Period. This controversy would not exist if they weren’t.
I put this together a while ago to help myself understand the licenses. I honestly dont know if its accurate. I am not a lawyer.
Philosophy and Intent:
GPL: The GPL is designed to ensure that software remains free and open, in the sense that users should have the freedom to use, modify, and distribute the software as they wish. This is sometimes referred to as "copyleft", because it is meant to counterbalance the traditional copyright system.
BSD: The BSD license is more permissive and does not require the same level of freedom. It is designed to allow as much freedom as possible, including the freedom to turn the software into a proprietary product.
Distribution and Modification:
GPL: If you modify a GPL-licensed program and distribute the modified version, you must distribute it under the GPL as well. You must also make the source code available. This requirement is why the GPL is called a "viral" license: it attempts to ensure that all derivative works are also free.
BSD: If you modify a BSD-licensed program and distribute the modified version, you do not need to distribute it under the BSD license, and you do not need to make the source code available. You could, for example, decide to distribute the modified version under a proprietary license.
Compatibility with Proprietary Software:
GPL: The GPL is not compatible with proprietary software licenses. That is, you cannot take GPL-licensed code and incorporate it into a proprietary software product.
BSD: The BSD license is compatible with proprietary software licenses. This means you can take BSD-licensed code and incorporate it into a proprietary software product.
License versions:
GPL: There are different versions of GPL (e.g., GPL v2 and GPL v3) and they are not necessarily compatible with each other.
BSD: The BSD license has two main versions (the "new" BSD license and the "simplified" or "free" BSD license), but they do not differ substantially in terms of compatibility.
But since there are multiple GPLs:
GPL v1: Released in 1989 by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), GPL v1 was created to prevent the privatization of free software and to ensure that software could be freely used, modified, and redistributed.
GPL v2: Released in 1991, GPL v2 had several changes from v1. One of the main ones was the introduction of the "Liberty or Death" clause. This clause states that if someone adds restrictions (beyond those in the GPL) to a GPL-licensed program (for instance, as a result of legal rulings or laws), they cannot distribute the program at all. This was intended to close a potential loophole where someone could add restrictions to a program and then claim they were forced to do so.
GPL v3: Released in 2007, GPL v3 has more detailed terms and is longer than GPL v2. There are several key changes:
Patent Clauses: GPL v3 includes explicit patent licensing, meaning that anyone distributing GPL v3-licensed software must also grant a patent license to the users of that software. This was designed to prevent situations where someone distributes software but then sues the users for patent infringement.
Tivoization: Named after a controversy involving TiVo, "Tivoization" refers to the practice of designing hardware so that it will only run a specific version of software, thus preventing modifications from running. GPL v3 explicitly disallows Tivoization, whereas GPL v2 does not.
Compatibility with Other Licenses: GPL v3 is compatible with more licenses than GPL v2. For instance, it's compatible with the Apache License 2.0, which GPL v2 is not.
Protection against Anti-Circumvention Laws: GPL v3 contains provisions that aim to prevent its software from falling under anti-circumvention laws like those in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). It's designed so that users cannot be sued for circumventing DRM (Digital Rights Management) in GPL-licensed software.
Additional Terms: GPL v3 allows “additional terms” to be added to certain parts of the license, offering some room for adaptation of the license to specific needs.
Remember, the different versions of GPL aren’t necessarily compatible with each other. That is, you can’t necessarily mix code licensed under GPL v2 with code licensed under GPL v3. If you’re working on a project that uses GPL-licensed code, you’ll need to pay close attention to the specific version of the license that’s in use.
The AGPL stands for the Affero General Public License. Similar to the GNU General Public License (GPL), the AGPL is a free software license, but it has an additional provision related to software run over a network.
In many ways, the AGPL is very similar to the GPL. It was designed to ensure that the software it covers remains free and open source, and that users have the ability to use, modify, and distribute the software.
However, there’s a key difference between the AGPL and the GPL: the AGPL has a specific requirement that if you run the software on a network server and modify it, you must offer the source code of your modified version to the network’s users. This requirement is meant to cover what’s sometimes called the “Application Service Provider loophole” in the GPL.
This “loophole” arises because the GPL requires you to share the source code of a modified version of a program only if you distribute the program. However, if you run a modified version of a program on a server and let users interact with it over a network (for instance, by providing it as a web service), you’re not technically distributing the program according to the GPL, so you’re not required to share your modifications.
They are specifically and explicitly trying to limit your freedom with regards to redistribution by making it a violation of their EULA to do so.
But the code is also available in CentOS Stream, which is basically the “git master” of RHEL, and that you can freely redistribute.
The people using RHEL aren’t using CentOS Stream, and they aren’t able to redistribute the actual software they are actively using. I don’t know how to state this any clearer.
Your logic would apply if they were entirely separate pieces of software, but RHEL is just essentially snapshots of CentOS Stream.
Those snapshots are not CentOS Stream. You are not running CentOS Stream, in the state in which it is provided, when you run a RHEL release. They arent entirely separate, but that’s exaggerating the claim and not what I’m arguing. The people who are using RHEL as provided are not able to redistribute the thing which they are using.
Whether the GPL says the redistributed code has to be a bug-for-bug compatible copy of RHEL is up for lawyers to decide. In my mind, saying “I am not running Software Foobar, I am running Software Foobar released a few months ago” seems like a silly distinction in this case, especially when talking about the health of FOSS.
Once again, their adherence to the letter of the GPL is certainly up for debate, I said as much at the start.
Their violation of its intent, however, is not. They are putting up roadblocks, however trivial or insignificant you seem to believe they are, to limit your freedom in redistributing they code they are providing. Period. This controversy would not exist if they weren’t.
I put this together a while ago to help myself understand the licenses. I honestly dont know if its accurate. I am not a lawyer. Philosophy and Intent:
But since there are multiple GPLs:
Remember, the different versions of GPL aren’t necessarily compatible with each other. That is, you can’t necessarily mix code licensed under GPL v2 with code licensed under GPL v3. If you’re working on a project that uses GPL-licensed code, you’ll need to pay close attention to the specific version of the license that’s in use.
Oh and then there is the AGPL:
The AGPL stands for the Affero General Public License. Similar to the GNU General Public License (GPL), the AGPL is a free software license, but it has an additional provision related to software run over a network.
In many ways, the AGPL is very similar to the GPL. It was designed to ensure that the software it covers remains free and open source, and that users have the ability to use, modify, and distribute the software.
However, there’s a key difference between the AGPL and the GPL: the AGPL has a specific requirement that if you run the software on a network server and modify it, you must offer the source code of your modified version to the network’s users. This requirement is meant to cover what’s sometimes called the “Application Service Provider loophole” in the GPL.
This “loophole” arises because the GPL requires you to share the source code of a modified version of a program only if you distribute the program. However, if you run a modified version of a program on a server and let users interact with it over a network (for instance, by providing it as a web service), you’re not technically distributing the program according to the GPL, so you’re not required to share your modifications.
The AGPL was designed to close this loophole.