[Image description : 4 Panel comic. Panel 1: A Dora the explorer ripoff wearing a fedora and with the fedora logo on her t-shirt is smiling at the viewer. The caption "Fedora the explorer" is over her head. Panel 2: She speaks to a vaguely anthropomorphic chameleon: "Hello Opensuse !" He replies : "Hi Fedora!" Panel 3: OpenSuse Says: "Someone has been using your code while not freely providing theirs despite the GPL licence!" Panel 4: Fedora "Hmmm... Who could it be?" A fox wearing a red hat emerges from a bush in the background. End ]
Wasn't it like they still provide their sources, but not binaries, which (while generally being a dick move) doesn't doesn't contradict the GPL?
Or have I missed something?
Afaik the issue is that they made their code "open" source in the way many for-profit companies do: they require a subscription before you have access to the code.
If I understand the GPL correctly that doesn't violate it, since it only requires that the users have access to the source and not the general public.
The part that really makes it possibly infringe on the GPL is when you combine it with their user terms: It threatens terminating service to customers who get the code and share it. The GPL is supposed to guarantee that the rights of sharing the source code, and RedHat impedes on this freedom. I think his article breaks it down pretty well: https://opencoreventures.com/blog/2023-08-redhat-gets-around-gplv2-license-intention-with-contract-law/
Microsoft did a similar thing with GPLV2 software. That's one of the new things in the GPLv3, you camnot enforce source code restriction by thirdparty subscription agreements
No. They closed their sources to subscribers, which in itself would be fine, but the terms of service contain a clause forbidding redistribution of the sources by subscribers, at the penalty of termination of the agreement.