* * *

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.