On 27/06/2014 23:00, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 06/27/2014 05:07 PM, Mark Rousell wrote:
>> Clearly, however, Red Hat's lawyers (and the FSF it
>> seems) think such a limitation is not a violation of GPL.
>>
>> For what it's worth, such limiting contractual terms (even if freely
>> entered into) do seem on the face of it to be a violation of clause 6 of
>> GPL2 and possibly clause 12 of GPL3 (amongst others possibly). Anyway,
>> as above, it seems that FSF disagrees with me so I need to read GPL2 and
>> 3 much more thoroughly!
>>
> For what it's worth, Bradley Kuhn has spent a great deal of time and
> effort in dealing with GPL violations.  The fact that even he concedes
> it is likely not a GPL violation speaks volumes

As I observed in another message (posted at 22:26:52 +0100), I am not
aware of any comment by Bradley Kuhn (or anyone similarly knowledgeable)
about the specific issue at hand here and now.

As I said in that message, all of the comments by Bradley Kuhn and
others date from 2011 and relate to RH's kernel distribution changes at
that time; they do *not* relate directly to the new issue about
limitations surrounding SRPMs in general which limit things
significantly further as far as I can see. Whilst there are certainly
significant similarities between the kernel issue from 2011 and this new
issue, they are not the same.

> the fact that he, the
> FSF, etc, have not initiated a lawsuit against Red Hat for a GPL
> violation speaks even louder.

As above, this seems to be a substantively new issue. If it wasn't a
substantive new issue then these threads on the subject would not exist
at all and SL7 would be based on RHEL7 SRPMs.

I can fully understand why the changes in 2011 did not breach GPL:
Everything that was required was still available. However, limiting all
SRPM source code usability, the issue at hand now, is a different kettle
of fish. It is no longer an issue about preferred form or prominent
notice of changes or support for potentially arbitrary code changes that
so concerned people in 2011. This is different and substantively
extended although, as I mentioned above, it does share some similarities
to the 2011 issue.

I also expect to be shown at some stage how RH's new, extended,
behaviour on this matter still complies with GPL but I can nevertheless
say that my own reading of GPL2 (as in my other message I referred to)
indicates to me that limiting what a customer can do with source code
(regardless of the fact that they freely entered into a contract with
RH) puts RH and/or the customer in breach of GPL2. Of course, I should
note that I can only infer what "RH's new, extended, behaviour" is
because I haven't seen a contract that really describes any
limitation/restrictions/limits on what a RH customer can do in this context.

> I was taught as a child that actions
> speak louder than words; and inaction speaks louder yet, especially as
> he finds Red Hat's practice to be distasteful.

I agree but bear in mind that
a) The practice about which he commented in 2011 has been significantly
extended in such a way that it seems to me to bring new licence clauses
into play, and
b) lack of action does not in and of itself necessarily imply lack of
intent or lack of breach (as things stand now).

As I mentioned above and despite all my comment, I still won't be
surprised if nothing happens even now.

> If there were a case to
> be made I would think Mr. Kuhn or another similarly-opinioned individual
> would have made it by now; this issue has been around for a decade, it's
> not a new thing.

And yet it most certainly *has* taken on a new form. That changes
things. The threads about it on this mail list would not exist if there
had not been such a substantive, real world, change.

> I do find
> myself wishing that the people debating whether the exact right number
> of angels are dancing on the head of this particular GPL pin would
> instead spend some time helping to end the flagrant, constant, and
> obvious GPL violations with which I spent much time dealing time each
> week."

Aren't discussion of relevant issues such as this pretty much what he
seeks? :-) Contractually limiting what a customer does with SRPMs (note,
an extended issue compared to kernel source code limitations and
incomplete documentation back in 2011) seems like an "obvious" breach of
clause 6 of GPL2 to me.