292
Dear Red Hat: Are you dumb? (www.jeffgeerling.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
120 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 3 years ago (3 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years 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.”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago*

    The warning is in the agreement every customer (and free developer account) signs to obtain access. They also mention they could sue you, although I think it is unrealistic they would do so just for redistribution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent