On 06/15/2018 01:33 PM, Keith Keller wrote:> On 2018-06-14, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: >> >> It turns out you are absolutely right. You only have provide modified >> source to users to whom you distribute derived work. Found it here: >> >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic > > Not totally relevant to this thread, but relevant to repeating: since > the code is still GPLv2, if RedHat shares its code with me, I can still > redistribute freely, even though RedHat is not necessarily > redistributing to the general public. RedHat can not prevent me from > redistribution even though I obtained the code under a paid support > contract. (At that point RH has zero obligation to anybody who > downloads from me, of course.) > > --keith >Yes they can // well, yes and no. You agreed to an EULA that says you will not distribute things that you get from that paid subscription. You can do it, and be in violation of the terms of your subscription. Then, you could lose said subscription privileges. You could modify it for your own use though. The CentOS team would never distribute anything in that manner. Or allow it to be distributed on CentOS.org machines/services. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20180615/1a9ad34f/attachment-0001.sig>
On 2018-06-16, Johnny Hughes via CentOS <centos at centos.org> wrote:> > You agreed to an EULA that says you will not distribute things that you > get from that paid subscription. You can do it, and be in violation of > the terms of your subscription.Is this enforceable with the GPLv2? IIRC someone who distributes GPLv2 source code is not permitted to restrict other people's ability to redistribute. It could be an interesting legal test (that I don't think CentOS should test :) ) --keith -- kkeller at wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
On 15 June 2018 at 21:07, Keith Keller via CentOS <centos at centos.org> wrote:> On 2018-06-16, Johnny Hughes via CentOS <centos at centos.org> wrote: >> >> You agreed to an EULA that says you will not distribute things that you >> get from that paid subscription. You can do it, and be in violation of >> the terms of your subscription. > > Is this enforceable with the GPLv2? IIRC someone who distributes GPLv2 > source code is not permitted to restrict other people's ability to > redistribute. It could be an interesting legal test (that I don't think > CentOS should test :) ) >This gets asked every couple of months for the last 18+ years. This has been the model that pretty much every enterprise company from Cygnus before Red Hat merged with it, to SuSE and Red Hat enforce their contracts. RMS has probably answered it so many times that he has an autoresponder on it.. so I would say ask him and see what he says. The general way it has been said is that this does not equal what the law sees as an additional restriction on the code. The restriction is on the support contract you have with Red Ha which is not promised in the GPL as being a right you have. The only licenses which do provide that amount and more requirements are code which are covered under the AGPL.> --keith > > -- > kkeller at wombat.san-francisco.ca.us > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-- Stephen J Smoogen.