An exceptionally well explained rant that I find myself in total agreement with.

  • digdilemOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unenforceable for individual users, maybe. But the distros that depended upon it will need to be open and honest about their sources so cannot do that. Users trust distros because of transparency.

    • duncesplayed@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Unenforceable for individual users means unenforceable overall, I suspect, since it only takes one person. Even if Rocky Linux doesn’t have a RHEL subscription, or has their subscription cancelled, they’re still allowed to use the source code that that subscription provides.

      So imagine Rocky Linux gets their RHEL subscription cancelled, so they’re no longer allowed to access RHEL source code directly. But they’re still legally allowed to access the source code. IBM doesn’t own the source code. They only own one method of access to the source code.

      So Joe Blow comes along and makes a RHEL subscription and downloads all of the source code. That source code is still GPL-licensed, which means that Joe Blow now has the legal right to distribute the source code to anyone he wishes (without restrictions), including Rocky Linux. So Joe Blow gives the RHEL source code to Rocky Linux. Rocky Linux now has full access to the RHEL source code. Nobody has violated the spirit or letter of the GPL, and IBM is powerless to do anything about it.

      Okay, so IBM bans Joe Blow. Now Jim Jones, Jane Smith and Alex Example come along and do the same thing. Is IBM going to try and track down and cancel the subscription of every individual who’s willing to share the source code they have every legal right to share?