Posts by Orlando-Native 6 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Jun 2023
They *have* new versions of the GPL. The problem is they are not "upward compatible". To re-license the Linux kernel under a new license would require the approval of *all* the people / companies that have contributed code that *still* resides in today's kernel version. Similarly for other parts of the distribution.
You don't need any Oracle branded hardware to run Solaris. It runs just as well on Dell; HP; or even some "brand X" home made system. I don't think that running it on Oracle hardware is even a requirement for a service contract.
What Oracle *did* definitely kill is their own chip architecture - SPARC.
While Oracle may very well be like IBM when it comes to it's proprietary software; when it comes to Linux it's business model is more open than Red Hat. Oracle distributes Oracle Linux binaries *AND* source for free; and doesn't restrict what you can do with it - as long as it's legal under the GPL license. You can use it; modify it to your heart's content; and/or redistribute it.
Oracle charges purely for *support* in the Linux arena. *IF* you want it - and for many enterprise type customers that's basically a requirement from their auditors. And companies *DO* pay for that. Oracle has it's own team who enhance and package that distribution; and; as far as I know; isn't losing money on the deal.
Why IBM/Red Hat apparently seem to have trouble doing so similarly; I don't understand. Unless they're just getting greedy.
Much of Linux (particularly the kernel) is distributed under the GPL; not GPL V2 or GPL V3.
GPL V1 - the original GPL - in 3 (b) states:
b) accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party free (except for a nominal charge
for the cost of distribution) a complete machine-readable copy of the
corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of
Paragraphs 1 and 2 above; or,
"Any third party" would seem to me to include exactly that: "Any"; whether an actual customer or not.
LOL. If that were illegal; then no "third party" support organization would be able to operate. Like your corner auto repair shop. Or tire store. Or appliance repair shop... ...etc.
Once you buy something; it's yours to do with as you will. Unless it's something under copyright; which adds (or subtracts) some restrictions. You can buy a book; read it; and later sell it to someone else; without restriction. But because of copyright laws; you can't make *copies* of that book and sell them; unless the copyright owner has given permission.
Now; Linux is software; which also comes under copyright law; but the GPL explicitly allows one to make copies of software licensed under it and redistribute them however one might want. But when you do that; all those copies are *also* licensed under the GPL (one can't change an upstream license without the approval of the original copyright owner). Which is basically what Red Hat is trying to do by; in essence; when saying "if you redistribute; we'll cancel your subscription to RHEL."
The problem here is that the GPL states that it's the definitive license of the work licensed under it; and that no additional terms can be imposed.
It also says that source code redistribution cannot be denied. Not binary; SOURCE.
Red Hat's business model is selling *support* for it's distribution. Which is perfectly legal under the GPL. It's not software. So not bound by GPL license terms. However; Red Hat's attempt to restrict *source* redistribution of the components licensed under the GPL within it's packaging via *contract* terms would seem to obviously add an additional "term" to the licensing the software is distributed under. Which isn't allowed by the GPL.
I've never had any issue with Red Hat's business model. It's very similar to a warranty; after all; which often can be extended for an additional length of time via additional payment; until the product reaches "End of Life". But the software in it's *distribution* is like a book who's author(s) (the copyright holders) have previously granted copying rights. That's what the GPL does.
The authors of the GPL (Free Software Foundation?) need to weigh in on this in an official stance. The question here isn't about the "cost" of the software. It's the freedom to use it as one sees fit. Red Hat doesn't "own" it in the traditional sense. So how can they add restrictions on how it can be used or disseminated? The *worst* they're allowed to do is not honor requests for support from those who didn't obtain it from them.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
