There is much more GPL (and other FOSS licensed) software in RHEL than just the kernel, and for the vast majority of it Red Hat does not own the copyrights even if they made enhancements to it, so Red Hat is not at liberty to relicense it. Often if they did write the software they don’t own the copyrights to it. For example: systemd is largely written by but not owned by Red Hat, copyright belongs to the individual contributors so it’s near impossible to ever relicense it. Same with selinux, Red Hat owns parts of it, but not completely (it was originally created by the NSA), so they can never relicense it without completely ditching the parts they don’t own.
As for RPM, no they don’t own the format (which is just something trivial like cpio with text header files anyway), it’s even part of the LSB. They do own the copyright to the program, but it’s licensed under the GPL. Going forward, they could theoretically relicense it and make future versions closed source and incompatible, but they can never un-release or un-license the versions of the software they’ve already put out there.
Anyway, this relicensing of Red Hat owned sources is not what they have been doing, because they still want to reap the benefits of open source software (i.e. community contributions). So most of the software they hold the copyrights to is licensed under the GPL as well. The only immediate example I can think of is the anaconda installer, which you can find here: https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda License: GPL v2.0
Until someone gives legal notice to IBM lawyers forcing Red Hat source code to be released pulicly, all of this debating over it means jack nothing.
If nobody takes IBM to court, the matter is settled and all developers must accept Red Hat’s choices.
If they dismiss the online talk, ignore all criticisms, and nobody pays for a lawsuit, the case is done and finished.
I’m not trying skip over your points, as I said from my first first, everybody can talk all they want, who has the power of persuasion or legal force to change IBM’s decision?
I may be wrong, but I believe only the Linux Foundation is a position to call IBM CTO, President, whoever, and say “We heard about the changes to with holding Red Hat’s source code, you will not be doing that, it shall remain public. If you want to discuss this further, please send your most expensive lawyers to our offices and we will explain in detail why you won’t be doing that.”
Until someone gives legal notice to IBM lawyers forcing Red Hat source code to be released pulicly, all of this debating over it means jack nothing.
That’s a misunderstanding. Even according to the GPL Red Hat doesn’t have to release their source publicly (though it would have been nice if they had kept doing that), they only have to give it to those who they give the binaries to (i.e. RHEL customers). The big issue is that they are trying to restrict their users from redistributing the sources that they are legally entitled to, which is a freedom they should have according to the GPL.
Section 6 of the GPL v2.0 says:
Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
If nobody takes IBM to court, the matter is settled and all developers must accept Red Hat’s choices.
I believe it’s the other way around. IBM needs to take someone to court over this to enforce their rules. For example, a customer who re-distributes RHEL sources or the Rocky Linux developers if (according to IBM) they “illegitimately” acquire RHEL sources.
I may be wrong, but I believe only the Linux Foundation is a position to call IBM CTO, President, whoever
You would be wrong indeed. Technically, anyone who holds a copyright on any part of a GPL licensed program that is included in RHEL could sue IBM for GPL violations. So even a developer of something silly like for example, cowsay, could do this.
The likely retaliation RH/IBM would take is simply banning the account, not starting a lawsuit immediately. However, rights holders may attempt sue before or after such an event, but likely after.
RH thinks they have the right to distribute code in this manner, and they can keep doing so until challenged in court. You can do actions in general without asking the court every time, I think the same applies here as well.
I personally think it is a violation in a strict sense, but at the same time I don’t think it really matters too much realistically. Stream is upstream RHEL, and they are very similar, and at some points in time, should be identical. It’s also not clear what you get exactly by suing RH/IBM. The likely case is that they settle or rule to have that section removed from the ToS.
There is much more GPL (and other FOSS licensed) software in RHEL than just the kernel, and for the vast majority of it Red Hat does not own the copyrights even if they made enhancements to it, so Red Hat is not at liberty to relicense it. Often if they did write the software they don’t own the copyrights to it. For example: systemd is largely written by but not owned by Red Hat, copyright belongs to the individual contributors so it’s near impossible to ever relicense it. Same with selinux, Red Hat owns parts of it, but not completely (it was originally created by the NSA), so they can never relicense it without completely ditching the parts they don’t own.
As for RPM, no they don’t own the format (which is just something trivial like cpio with text header files anyway), it’s even part of the LSB. They do own the copyright to the program, but it’s licensed under the GPL. Going forward, they could theoretically relicense it and make future versions closed source and incompatible, but they can never un-release or un-license the versions of the software they’ve already put out there.
Anyway, this relicensing of Red Hat owned sources is not what they have been doing, because they still want to reap the benefits of open source software (i.e. community contributions). So most of the software they hold the copyrights to is licensed under the GPL as well. The only immediate example I can think of is the anaconda installer, which you can find here: https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda License: GPL v2.0
Until someone gives legal notice to IBM lawyers forcing Red Hat source code to be released pulicly, all of this debating over it means jack nothing.
If nobody takes IBM to court, the matter is settled and all developers must accept Red Hat’s choices.
If they dismiss the online talk, ignore all criticisms, and nobody pays for a lawsuit, the case is done and finished.
I’m not trying skip over your points, as I said from my first first, everybody can talk all they want, who has the power of persuasion or legal force to change IBM’s decision?
I may be wrong, but I believe only the Linux Foundation is a position to call IBM CTO, President, whoever, and say “We heard about the changes to with holding Red Hat’s source code, you will not be doing that, it shall remain public. If you want to discuss this further, please send your most expensive lawyers to our offices and we will explain in detail why you won’t be doing that.”
That’s a misunderstanding. Even according to the GPL Red Hat doesn’t have to release their source publicly (though it would have been nice if they had kept doing that), they only have to give it to those who they give the binaries to (i.e. RHEL customers). The big issue is that they are trying to restrict their users from redistributing the sources that they are legally entitled to, which is a freedom they should have according to the GPL.
Section 6 of the GPL v2.0 says:
I believe it’s the other way around. IBM needs to take someone to court over this to enforce their rules. For example, a customer who re-distributes RHEL sources or the Rocky Linux developers if (according to IBM) they “illegitimately” acquire RHEL sources.
You would be wrong indeed. Technically, anyone who holds a copyright on any part of a GPL licensed program that is included in RHEL could sue IBM for GPL violations. So even a developer of something silly like for example, cowsay, could do this.
The likely retaliation RH/IBM would take is simply banning the account, not starting a lawsuit immediately. However, rights holders may attempt sue before or after such an event, but likely after.
RH thinks they have the right to distribute code in this manner, and they can keep doing so until challenged in court. You can do actions in general without asking the court every time, I think the same applies here as well.
I personally think it is a violation in a strict sense, but at the same time I don’t think it really matters too much realistically. Stream is upstream RHEL, and they are very similar, and at some points in time, should be identical. It’s also not clear what you get exactly by suing RH/IBM. The likely case is that they settle or rule to have that section removed from the ToS.