GPL Licensing
Les Mikesell wrote:
The question wasn't about buying it. It was about the
redistribution
restriction attached that the GPL does not permit.
GPL requires that you will get the source if you get the binary but
there is no requirement that forces anybody to give you the binaries in
the first place including updates. So the subscriptions requirement are
in compliance. Again, there is zero requirements in any free and open
source license to give binaries for free to anybody because there is a
limit to which copyright laws can extend itself.
You have to be pretty naive to think that Red Hat would build a business
model without checking basic details like these. You might also want to
note that Red Hat counsel involved is now a associate at the Software
Freedom Law Center with Eben Moglen who wrote the license in the first
place and Red Hat employs lawyers who participated in GPLv3 changes. If
you actually believe that there is a license violation, feel free to
convince any of the developers of GPL licensed code that Red Hat
includes in RHEL or FSF itself. I am sure they would happy to tell you
exactly why you are wrong in detail if necessary.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-violation.html
Rahul