On 27/06/2014 21:05, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 06/27/2014 03:28 PM, Mark Rousell wrote:
>> 1) Can anyone confirm or deny that Red Hat places contractual
>> limitations on what a subscriber (who has access to the RHEL7 SRPMs) can
>> do with the source code so obtained? ...
> Also, in addition to the links in the previous post,
> http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/03/11/linux-red-hat-gpl.html is
> educational.  The core thought here is, does 'consequence' equal
> 'restriction?'

In terms of clause 6 of GPL2 it seems obvious to me that it does (n.b.
in the context of the specific issue at hand here which was not of
concern back in 2011): A contractual limitation which seeks to limit the
customer's actions with negative consequences if they don't comply seems
to me to quite clearly breach clause 6 of GPL2 which states:

	Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on
	the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license
	from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the
	Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not
	impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of
	the rights granted herein.

A contractual limitation is surely a clear case of "impos[ing] any
further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted
herein.".

But, hey, I am sure that Bradley Kuhn knows better than me.

However, as I mentioned above, it should also be noted that all the web
pages linked to here (including Bradley Kuhn's comments) are from 2011
and specifically refer to the kernel distribution changes that Red Hat
made at that time. The cessation of SRPM distribution in general to
non-customers, which is the specific issue at hand here, is a new issue
that has new considerations to take into account. Whilst it has
similarities to the kernel issue in 2011 it also goes further.