(no title)
gulikoza | 2 years ago
However, this makes it as if you are being punished for exercising the rights that have been given to you by the original software license.
gulikoza | 2 years ago
However, this makes it as if you are being punished for exercising the rights that have been given to you by the original software license.
zokier|2 years ago
> You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein
So I think it could be debatable if RHELs policy represents a restriction. Overall I feel this part of GPL has not been explored all that thoroughly and I feel it raises questions beyond this RHEL case. For example FSFs GPL FAQ states:
> For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DevelopChangesU...
I don't understand how that is not conflicting here; wouldn't your client be distributing the code to be modified to you, and that should be covered by GPL? And as such the NDA would represent additional restriction?
I suppose there could be a special case where the client would ask modifications for a publicly available sources and as such would not be distributing the code themselves, but I feel that can not be considered typical or general case.
Similar interesting case would be employees receiving copies of company internal forks of GPL code. Should employees have right to redistribute the code in accordance to GPL terms without threat of getting punished?
kijin|2 years ago
nuker|2 years ago
This means war. Rebel!