>When the source changes, you get those as well.

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, that is my point. They terminate your subscription (stopping you from receiving "the binary"), for re-publishing the source code which you are allowed to re-publish, but they don’t want you to.

Terminating the subscription and preventing you from receiving the binary is Red Hat's prerogative. GPL does not say why Red Hat should not do so, and philosophically, it also does not contradict any software freedom.

Of course it is, legally. But they are threatening termination specifically to prevent people from exercising their freedom. How that can’t be seen as violating the spirit, I don’t know.

People are not prevented from exercising their freedom.

* * *

That comparison doesn't work in exactly the way that illustrates Red Hat's compliance with the GPL.

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.

Okay, I can see that argument. So let me rephrase: "You can exercise freedom 4, but only if you never use any updated version of this software again", would you say that leaves you just as free as normal GPL software does? A licence like that would not even be GPL compatible, but Red Hat is essentially prescribing just that in a roundabout way.

I don't see how that is equivalent to what Red Hat is doing. 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.

To clarify, you think a license saying "You can exercise freedom 4, but only if you never use any updated version of this software again" is just as free and GPL compatible?

No, I'm saying your formulation doesn't match Red Hat's EULA.

How? You just said it does. Assume I’m dumb and explain to me the difference, please.

No, I didn't. I'm not sure where you get that from?

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?

What I don’t get is the difference between

> 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.

Your version rescinds freedom 4 upon using an updated version. Red Hat's EULA doesn't do that.

Okay, so you are saying you are just nitpicking? This is still the same in pretty much every way:

You can exercise freedom 4, but only if you never use any version of this software released after exercising that freedom.

I'm not nitpicking, what I've said is the difference between GPL compliance and not. This next version of yours is different to Red Hat's EULA in the same way.

Yes, you are. I repeatedly said it’s about the spirit, not about some lawyer compliance stuff. You either tell me how our versions differ for the user of the software effectively, or you don’t need to bother answering, I won’t.

The spirit of the GPL is the user being able to exercise the four freedoms, not more nor less. Red Hat's EULA allows that; your version doesn't.

Well, if you take it so far as death, I can even argue that even death does not stop you from exercising your freedom. You just don't deserve to live if you dare to redistribute my software in a way I don't like. The problem is defining what a "restriction" is. As an example, The Government of India pulled the same tactic as Red Hat in this case. Enrolling in India's biometric Aadhar program is "voluntary", but it is mandatory to do a lot of basic things - like filing taxes.

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.

Of course you are correct. The people you are discussing with and who pretend not to understand may be several of the numerous outsourced employees in the Czech Republic or Germany who are awake now.

No.

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 :)

> It doesn’t mean i have to distribute it to you for ever.

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.

Which spirit? The spirit of the GPL is four essential freedoms. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html You should be able to cite the number between 1 and 4.

Sure. 4

How is it against freedom 4? You can distribute modified versions to the end of the world. You just don't get access to future modifications made by Red Hat. You are not entitled, neither legally nor morally, to Red Hat's future modifications.

As I said in another comment [0]:

> 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?

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36583491

It is useless trying to use either logic or reason here.

It is just legalistic rambling and I've found it better to not engage this line of (non) reasoning.

No, 100% not. When you change the source, you are not obligated to give the change to anyone else.

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.

I thought this was clear, but as 2 misunderstood me already, I guess not.