This is simply not true: it's explicitly not the intent of the GPL, and furthermore the GPL is clearly a contract which explicitly spells out its intent, not a vague document whose spirit needs to be interpreted.
It is explicit in the freedoms it grants you, one of which being the freedom to distribute copies. The intent is pretty clear. The RH workaround to that is that if you exercise this freedom, they will not do business with you in the future. You got to exercise your freedom, but only once. The GPL doesn't have recourse for that.
You can redistribute the source, and that's what really matters. No one ever made any claims to redistributing binaries, and that's neither the letter nor the spirit of th GPL.
The GPL is about user freedom, which relies on source code. The whole thing came about because Richard only had access to binaries for that printer.
And it makes sense that RedHat wouldn't want you to distribute their binaries...who's to say you didn't backdoor them? That's their name on the line, too.
bubblethink|7 years ago
sigzero|7 years ago
unknown|7 years ago
[deleted]
Frondo|7 years ago
The GPL is about user freedom, which relies on source code. The whole thing came about because Richard only had access to binaries for that printer.
And it makes sense that RedHat wouldn't want you to distribute their binaries...who's to say you didn't backdoor them? That's their name on the line, too.