Comprehensive Analysis of GPL Issues with the Red Hat RHEL Business Model
sfconservancy.org
sfconservancy.org
Since the written offer is apparently mandatory [1], does this mean that a potential way forward (if Red Hat intends to not break the GPL) is for Rocky and Alma to make regular written requests for source?
[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html, specifically
> If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
> The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
Now, let's say Alma & Rocky go back to Red Hat and say "We want the source for these packages we obtained while we had a subscription." I think Red Hat could respond by saying "OK, you last had a subscription on X/X/202X, here are the versions of SRPMs that were in activate at the time your subscription ended. Oh, you want newer SRPMs? Well, too bad, you don't have an active subscription."
Could Red Hat do this? Sure. Would they do this? At this point, probably. Does that go against the letter of the GPLv2? My thinking is no. Does it go against the _spirit_ of the GPLv2? Yes.
GPL is pretty straight forward - it sets out to give users of software the freedom to modify and run the software themselves. That's the spirit, and I think Red Hat.
It does violate the spirit of "free as in beer" "open source", however.
No, not just “modify and run”, it's about “modify, run and redistribute without any other restriction than publishing the redistributed code under the same licence”. That's exactly what makes creative common-NC a non-free license by the way.
It is mandatory if you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code. More precisely, the GPL says you only need to do one of 3a) accompany binaries with the complete corresponding source code 3b) accompany binaries with a written offer valid for any third party 3c) pass over the written offer you received but only if your distribution is noncommercial.
Based on this there are two important points.
First, Red Hat always accompanies binaries that it distributes accompanied with source code, therefore they do not have to provide a written offer. Also note that only the written offer option is valid for any third party, the "accompany binaries with source code" option is not.
Second, it is important that the rights you have according to the GPL start and end with the binaries that you received, they cannot be extended arbitrarily to future releases.
Both points are related to the "dissident test" at point 9b of https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html.
and would it be a good way to change the GPL so that such things are definitely forbidden? (i think so.)
Without first-hand experience, that's the same business model that Adacore (of the GNU Ada Translator) were said to use, back when they weren't really having an open source option. That last part seems to have changed, though.