Comment Re:Lawsuit? (Score 1) 143
Incorrect. It does violate.
You can go through Red Hat's spywall and register for a "free" time limited subscription.
However, upon expiration of that subscription, even though you still possess the binaries (which still work, but honestly, it doesn't matter), the fact that you can no longer get the source is a violation of the GPL.
For a "customer", it is similar. Let's say I pay Red Hat for "support" and now have a longer lasting term subscription. As long as I continue to pay, I can continue to renew that subscription, etc. However, once the subscription expires (for whatever reason), once again, I have distributed binaries under the GPL for which I can no longer have the source.
This is not a gray area. It is a violation.
Red Hat (of old) used to understand the GPL. I urge anyone that still believes in FOSS at Red Hat to stand up for FOSS and in particular, the GPL.
You can go through Red Hat's spywall and register for a "free" time limited subscription.
However, upon expiration of that subscription, even though you still possess the binaries (which still work, but honestly, it doesn't matter), the fact that you can no longer get the source is a violation of the GPL.
For a "customer", it is similar. Let's say I pay Red Hat for "support" and now have a longer lasting term subscription. As long as I continue to pay, I can continue to renew that subscription, etc. However, once the subscription expires (for whatever reason), once again, I have distributed binaries under the GPL for which I can no longer have the source.
This is not a gray area. It is a violation.
Red Hat (of old) used to understand the GPL. I urge anyone that still believes in FOSS at Red Hat to stand up for FOSS and in particular, the GPL.