Looks like bing chat is programmed to insist that RedHat RHEL is not violating the GPL…
Looks like bing chat is programmed to insist that RedHat RHEL is not violating the GPL…
I admit I know nothing about what programs RedHat has contributed to, or what their plans are. I am only familiar with the GPL in general (I use arch, btw). So I tried to have Bing introduce me to the situation. The conversation got weird and maybe manipulative by Bing.
Can you explain to me why Bing is right and I am wrong?
It sounds like a brazen GPL violation. And if RedHat is allowed to deny a core feature of the GPL, the ability to redistribute, it will completely destroy the ability of any author to specify any license other than MIT. Perhaps Microsoft has that goal and forced Bing to support it.
Bing Chat is wrong. RHEL customers are legally allowed to share the code. What Red Had can do, and that has nothing to do with the GPL, is to end the contract with the customer who shared the code, thereby according to the GPL the customer also no longer has any right to access the code. The GPL only applies to software distribution, not contracts outside copyright law.
Edit: Red Hat is under no obligation to share non-copyleft code of which there is plenty in a Linux distribution but they do. Just look at Apple: Take plenty of FOSS code, give back only a fraction. It sucks but it's legal. That's also why Apple moved away from GPL software – can't even bothered to ship BASH with macOS.
Whether RedHat is violating the GPL by cancelling the contracts of customers who exercise their rights under the GPL is an open question. There certainly is not a consensus on this in the open source community, the Software Freedom Conservancy seems to lean toward the view that RedHat's new policy is in violation - https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/
However the only way to find out is for someone to challenge RedHat in court. IANAL but if you could demonstrate in a court that RedHat has actually had a pattern of behavior where they are canceling contracts whenever people exercised their rights under the software license, I think you might have a pretty good case. IBM for their part has good lawyers and is basically saying bring it on, this is business.
Yes. I just don’t know if it’s good to phrase it as “RHEL customers are legally allowed to share the code”, since as soon as they do it they won’t be allowed to be customers anymore lol (assuming Red Hat finds out)
I just don’t know if it’s good to phrase it as “RHEL customers are legally allowed to share the code”, since as soon as they do it they won’t be allowed to be customers anymore lol (assuming Red Hat finds out)
It's not good to phrase it the way Bing Chat does and claim that it's illegal either.
Btw, I find it funny how short the memory of many users is. Canonical claims copyright for all compiled binaries of non-GPL code (this includes OpenSSL, Xorg, and Wayland, among many others): https://ubuntu.com/legal/intellectual-property-policy ("Any redistribution of modified versions of Ubuntu must be approved, certified or provided by Canonical if you are going to associate it with the Trademarks. Otherwise you must remove and replace the Trademarks and will need to recompile the source code to create your own binaries.")
RedHat telling customers they can only enter agreement with them if they don’t choose to use their rights is the same thing as denying their rights. That’s a mighty fine hair to split, but I understand something like that could be argued in court. I still feel this completely neuters the whole point of the GPL. Authors who chose the GPL did so with the clear expectation that redistribution would be paid forward. I hope FSF chooses to go to court over this.
There are a lot of factors at play here. And I think a lot of people don't understand them all. Not all software is under GPL, so to say RHEL is under the GPL is wrong. Parts of it are, but not all of it. But let's take a GPL package, like the kernel. The kernel itself is GPL, but that doesn't mean the packaging code is, ie the source rpm that was written by Redhat (not the build tools and makefiles distributed with the kernel).
I don't know what if any license the packaging code is, for any distros. It is not normally something people think about. But as far as I understand the GPL I do not think it automatically includes the code used to package applications written in it.
So it is not as simple as most people think it is. Redhat likely do have a claim to be able to restrict others from distributing their packages, just not the application code inside the packages.
Though doing so is a massive dick move on their part.
"programmed to" sounds like a human sat down and wrote explicit instructions for how to answer this specific question. It might also just be that the language model was trained on texts that predominantly said that RHEL is not violating the GPL. I don't think anyone outside Microsoft can know which one it is.
It’s simple: they can redistribute it since it’s GPL, but if they do so, they break their business contract with RedHat, so they’re not customers anymore and can’t see the source code in the future.
GPL doesn’t mean that they must give the code to everyone, only that you have those rights as long as you have the software. So RedHat is not forced to have everyone as a customer, and according to them, distributing the code kicks you out.
They can still re-distribute the current source they have, but will not have access to future source code.