On 06/27/2014 07:06 PM, Mark Rousell wrote:
> On 27/06/2014 23:45, Lamar Owen wrote:
>> Again, this is not a new issue in general; it's just now impacting more
>> people than before who are surprised by something that's been around for
>> a long time.
> ...
>
> a) It's a new issue in the specific context in which it matters here (as
> I said, if it wasn't a new issue in this context then there would not be
> the problem that is at hand),

Just because it took some folk by surprise does not make it a new 
issue.  It might be 'new to you' but 'new to you' doesn't make it 
objectively 'new.'  Some people, including me, have been thinking about 
this very issue for years (in my case ever since RHL 6.2E was first 
released; RHAS 2.1 split a little further, and RHEL3 made it official; I 
still have a personal archive of a non-public mailing list of what lots 
of people, including myself, thought about it at the time it happened);  
I honestly was pleasantly surprised when the source RPMS for EL6 were 
still up for public consumption, and while a bit disappointed I am not 
really surprised that Red Hat has made this particular business decision 
for EL7.  Reality is and has always been a balancing act; in this case 
the balance is between openness and business survival.  And for SL, 
CentOS, and all the other RHEL rebuilds out there, survival of their 
respective distributions is rather extensively dependent upon survival 
of Red Hat the company.

>
> b) the comments by Bradley Kuhn and others back in 2011 do not fully
> apply to the situation at hand now (even though it is a longstanding
> issue in general), and

Sure they do; those comments are about the GPL and the 'preferred method 
of source delivery.'  The 'same source' is still out there in a 
different form.  (Yes, I'm aware of the issues with making sure it's the 
same source, and I think those issues will be addressed).

> c) as I said in my message posted at 23:41:46 +0100, just because it is
> a longstanding issue that is increasingly common practice does not mean
> that it is acceptable or that it will necessarily stand if well
> challenged.

Are you volunteering to be the challenger here?   Until someone who 
actually owns copyright in a GPL-covered package being distributed by 
Red Hat makes challenge, it is what it is.  And unless I am mistaken it 
does require a copyright holder to challenge a copyright license 
violation (mere users of the program wouldn't have standing).  The FSF 
is one such organization, and they have not yet made challenge (and 
history shows that the FSF is not at all shy about challenging when they 
feel that they have a case).  Time well tell if this latest wrinkle in 
this long-standing issue will tip the scales far enough to cause one of 
the copyright holders make a challenge to this business model.  My gut 
feel is that the source still being available through the git.centos.org 
mechanism will keep most potential challengers, with actual standing, 
from spending the time and money to foist a challenge.


> Historical lack of action does not necessarily legitimise,
> justify or explain current or future lack of action. Opinions can and do
> change.
>

What is or is not legal is entirely a matter of opinion (it will of 
course boil down to a court's opinion if it's challenged).  It's not 
clear cut.  If you want clarification from Red Hat, well, you're going 
to get their own opinion on what they're doing.  Red Hat had chosen in 
the past to release source RPMs to the public, which at least in my 
opinion is going above and beyond the letter of the GPL requirements, at 
least for the main stream of packages (and people, including me, have 
been saying for years that Red Hat has been going above and beyond the 
letter of the GPL in doing so).  But if it is legally ok to hold back 
from the public *any* source RPM that is under the GPL, then it is 
legally ok to hold back from the public *all* source RPMs under the GPL 
(and Red Hat has held back some source RPMs from public distribution for 
a number of years).  As long as the people to whom the binaries are 
distributed can get the sources to those specific binary packages the 
GPL is satisfied in letter.  At least until a court of law holds 
otherwise.  And courts' opinions can change, too.

I'm not saying I agree with it or not; I know my preferences, and 
business realities often clash with my preferences.  And, of course, Red 
Hat could decide to reverse their decision; time will tell.

And I'll leave the thread with this link to a bugzilla from 2007 (and 
please note the names of many of the participants):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=230412