zlacker

>>gnufx+(OP)
Red Hat has not fucking stopped making its source available. It's making it difficult for non-customers to get the source, and that is within their right. The GPL family of licenses do not state that (1) you're obliged to redistribute anything to anyone; or that (2) if you redistribute binaries to Party A, you're obliged to redistribute sources to Party B (let alone the entire public).

Red Hat's behavior is not any kind of loophole in FOSS licensing that's worth worrying about. It's just a shenanigan they are pulling because they think it will help them stay paid.

The loopholes worth fussing about are SaaS (peple having absolutely no control over the software because they are using someone else's installation remotely) and tivoization (locked down hardware preventing users from exercising their rights in regard to the FOSS operating system it runs)

>>kazina+Yj
It's correct that the GPL does not require RH to distribute the source code to anyone but their customers. That's not the issue though! The issue is that if I, as a RH customer, execute the rights given to me by RH via the GPL and pass the sources to a third party, RH will terminate my customer contract. The license does not proscribe this in letter but it seems to go against its spirit.

>>neurom+8t
> The license does not proscribe this in letter

I do really disagree on this. If somebody tells you "you are allowed to do X", not punishing you when you do X is clearly stated.