mRNA-based antibiotics should be able to alleviate that problem

Malaria is serious, but it's not the threat that it once was.

Explicitly saying something that attempts to restrict distribution, such as for example, that you may not redistribute the source of a GPL source code without written from the party you received it from would certainly qualify as a disallowed restriction under the GPL. If you want to impose such a restriction, then you do not have the right to distribute the GPL'd work in the first place, unless you actually owned all of the copyrights in place on the work, in which case you wouldn't want to distribute under a GPL anyways.

I am wondering if Redhat wanting to cancel anyone's subscription who distributes the GPL sources they receive from Redhat might fall under a similar umbrella, because the net effect is the same.

You know that we can cure malaria now though, right?

A fairly big difference between now and then

It's a fine line (that I can't claim to be sure of legal bits)... but Red Hat isn't restricting redistribution directly. They're saying they can cut off access to future software if you redistribute the current sources.

I understand this.... what I'm wondering is if such punitive measures qualify as attempting to restrict distribution, which is expressly disallowed by the GPL, and would make Redhat in violation of it, if such measures qualified as restrictions.

I don't know the answer to this, but I sure would like to know.

But the GPL explicitly grants any receiver of source code that is so licensed with permission to redistribute it, and explicitly prevents the distributor of it from limiting the distribution of that source.

What is unclear is if redhat's threat to cancel a person's subscription if they simply release GPL source code that they obtained from redhat would constitute redhat attempting to impose such a restriction on redistribution.

I am also very skeptical that redhat is obligated to continue to provide source to someone they that they no longer distribute binaries to. The implications otherwise are that if a private person distributes a GPL work, he would also then be obligated to continue to provide source for that work as well, long after they stopped providing the binary for their work, because there could be many reasons why they stopped providing the binary for their work. For example, maybe they died? Why should the person's heirs be obligated to continue to distribute anything? A rather extreme example, I know, but the logistical issues that demand continuing to provide source after you have stopped providing binaries are too fraught with cases where it would be unjust to expect it to continue to be tenable.

customer also have to redistribute the source (also getting their subscription cancelled).

Leaving the logistical issues aside that if GPL'd source code is being distributed, Redhat may not have any means to identify which party they might have given it to that is distributing it, I wonder if such punative action on the part of Redhat would constitute them trying to further restrct somone that they give the source code to from further distrributing it to whomever they want?

Obviously they cannot further distribute any redhat binaries.;. but I cannot see how they could not be allowed to distribute source code. And if the source code links to the binaries, then the source to those binaries in turn have to subject to the GPL.

Because the kiinds of pressures that they have to put this under are nothing like what you would find an ordinary room that you might ordinarily expect to be able to live comfortably in.

These articles are talking about high-pressure, high temperature superconductors. I know that is more words, but it says what the thing actually is.

The notion of "room temperature" has existed for generations to refer to an environment that is comfortable to dwell in. It should be taken as a given that the phrase also refers to ambient atmospheric pressure.

Redhat is not obligated to provide source code to their product in perpetuity to people they have given it to. Sorry... the GPL doesn't work like that.

However, Redhat cannot directly stop someone who has received GPL code from redhat and turning around and distributing it freely, even if they are a paid subscriber to Redhat. Redhat may have indirect mechanisms to prevent, such as discontinuing a person's license, if they have means of tracing the source of someone who made their code available, but I wonder if even this might constitute a "restriction" in the sense that the GPL explicitly says that a person may not put on someone who they provide GPL code to.

But of course, IANAL. This story could get really interesting.

True, but by the same license, Redhat will be unable do anything to prohibit people from distributiing the same GPL sources by the people that receive it.

Redhat may not be directly obligated to make their code free to everyone, even if it is covered by the GPL, but they cannot stop someone else from doing so, because the right to distribute GPL code you receive is granted by the person who gives you that code in the first place. If they did not mean to be doing this, then they should not be trying to distribute binaries whose source code was covered by the GPL.

Yes, actually... coincidences happen sometimes.

And given the utter lack of any evidence to actually support the lab leak hypothesis, believing that it is just coincidence is the more rational thing to do.

Otherwise you are grasping at flimsy explanations that are mere conjecture, with no actual way to prove anything. That's not scientific skepticism.

If Facebook was serious about this, they would cease allowing access to members from IP addresses located in Canada altogether.

Then wait for the shitstorm to hit Parliament.... watch them backpedal inside of a year.

Existing LLM's such as the one that drives ChatGPT prove that it is evidently possible to generate coherent sentences in a language by randomly producing output based on the statistical frequency of tokens appearing near eachother in the training texts.

Intelligence, therefore, cannot be reasonably deduced based on yjr output of a system alone, but the process by which that output is achieved must also be examined. Intelligent creatures do not generally communicate by randomly spitting out verbage in their language based on the mere statistcal frequency of such words being near eachother, and try to call such babble any form of actual coherent communication. It can superficially resemble it, but that is because properties that exist in a moderately structured communication system such as a human language. It is *not* an indication of intelligence.

Oh crap.... I misread the question.

Slashdot has broken my brain. I don't know what to think anymore. Why are we even here? What is the meaning of life?