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.

  • trachemys@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    11·
    1 year ago

    I agree that all that can be done is sue them and lets the courts decide what the meaning of the GPL contract is.

    I’m surprised at the link you gave since it is written by someone who agrees with my take, not yours and RedHat’s. And you stated clearly that RedHat absolutely is not violating the GPL, when that is actually just your opinion. The real tldr quote of that article is:

    Debates continue, even today, in copyleft expert circles, whether this model itself violates GPL. There is, however, no doubt that this provision is not in the spirit of the GPL agreements.

    Time for a GPL version 4: no extraneous agreements that nullify GPL terms.

    My apologies if I seem too hostile. I firmly believe this is an existential issue for open source.

    • tlaEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      If Red Hat customers had the cahonies they should all distribute the source they are entitled to. Let’s see if Red Hat is prepared to kill its business by terminating all its support contracts.