Only those whom the component was distributed to can make this demand (although GPL lets this individual distribute the source afterwards), and only for that specific source revision.
The spirit of GPL is just compliance. It predates all modern source code distribution and collaboration systems and processes - a floppy disk sent by snail mail in response to a letter is likely the original intent.
People who choose to attach GPL licenses to their code are certainly not lawyers and bureaucrats; they intend for a certain level of sharing to occur, else they'd have chosen BSD or MIT license.
That seems unfair when Rocky/CIQ explicitly uses Red Hat's 10-year support as an advertisement point and contribute nothing to that fair?
https://ciq.com/support/rocky-linux/
With regular updates and a 10-year committed support lifecycle for each
major release, Rocky Linux is ideal for use in enterprise environments. It
is easy to migrate from CentOS and other RHEL-derived Linux distributions,
and it is secure and scalable.
Platforms on top of GPL-licensed can promise all they want but still live under the control of the community and that's part of the business many companies like Google, Meta, Obsidian are in.
Selling, and entering into an agreement, the support you don't own based exclusively on the work of another third-party that actually promises that, that's at the very least not right. CIQ/Rocky can't do anything on top of Rocky Linux because of their bug-for-bug compatibility and this decision and message benefits CIQ and not Rocky Linux users. That's also evident.
Rocky Linux could go on using CentOS Stream as an upstream with the help of Red Hat, but CIQ made the business decision to push for a RHEL clone, not the Rocky Linux user community.
You talk about morals, but if you can't see the morals here I don't think you really understand how this whole business works.
FOSS is not GPL, GPL is not FOSS. Licenses are a very small part of what we consider the modern free software movement.
What? GPL gives you the source if you receive the compiled form. When the source changes, you get those as well if you receive the compiled form.
Edited in if you receive the compiled form twice for clarity.
No, it does not say this. It says that if someone gets a piece of software, a binary for example, they must be given the source code it was built upon on request. It does not say that they have to receive all future source code updates even if they don't get future versions of the software.
Yes, if the consequence of excercising freedom is death(or imprisonment) then you aren't actually free, because killing (or imprisonment) stops you from excercising freedom. Red Hat terminating your license does not stop you from excercising the freedom the GPL gives you.
Anyway, Red Hat's EULA doesn't restrict freedom 4. You asserted an alternative formulation where it does infringe to be equivalent.
I reject that equivalence assertion. Does that make it clear?
> They never restrict your freedom 4 with their EULA. Only availability of future binaries. All already received binaries have their licenses intact and unrestricted, even if you break the EULA.
And
> You can exercise freedom 4, but only if you never use any updated version of this software again
To me those seem 100% equivalent in what they do, I’m asking you to explain the difference which is obvious to you, but not to me.
I never say already received binaries have their licence violated. I actually never ever said the licence is violated at all, that was in my premise before the IANAL part.
You can exercise freedom 4, but only if you never use any version of this software released after exercising that freedom.
Red Hat is doing the same thing, threatening to cut off the relationship if you decide to exercise one of the GPL's freedoms. Counts as a restriction in my book.
GPL means I can’t distribute GPL software or its derivatives without its source. It doesn’t mean i have to distribute it to you for ever.
So if I don’t distribute the software to you, I don’t need to give you updates. Just like if I download some gpl code and change it locally, as long as I don’t distribute any part of it, i also don’t have to publish its sources.
Now the issue is not that, the issue is the spirit. GPL meantions “no further restrictions”, so is “exercising your GPL rights terminates your contract” a restriction? Technically you can still do what ever you want with that software , without any law suite etc, but I wouldn’t consider it free if there’s grave, even if non legal, consequences from doing so.
Edit : written before parent clarified his comment :)
I edited my comment as it’s apparently misunderstood by everyone.
Your final paragraph was exactly what I meant with going against the spirit of the GPL.
> Sure, not legally. Just de-facto. Or to use some reductio ad absurdum, you can exercise all your freedoms, but you will be killed for it, is not very free, is it?
It is just legalistic rambling and I've found it better to not engage this line of (non) reasoning.
I thought this was clear, but as 2 misunderstood me already, I guess not.
The issue is, IMO, that they are saying they are terminating access to those publishing those sources. I don’t know if that goes against the letter of the GPL (IANAL), but I’d say it certainly goes against the spirit, they are denying their users a freedom to publish those sources, in a way.