…this completes what appears to be a decade-long plan by Red Hat to maximize the level of difficulty of those in the community who wish to “trust but verify” that RHEL complies with the GPL agreements. Namely, Red Hat has badly thwarted efforts by entities such as Rocky Linux and Alma Linux. These entities are de-facto the intellectual successors to CentOS Linux project that Red Hat carefully dismantled over the last decade

  • phase_change@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I suspect what Red Hat is doing is compatible with GPLv2, which is how the Linux kernel is licensed. I’m certain what they are doing is inimical to the Intent of GPLv2.

    That raises some questions and possibilities. It looks like the Linux kernel still has the GPLv2 or later clause, despite not moving to GPLv3. See https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.18/process/license-rules.html

    How possible is it to create a GPLv4 that addresses this? Building a new license that does shouldn’t be difficult. However, I’d assume the Linux kernel isn’t released under a GPLv3 or later because of some objections with those changes. I’d imagine creating a GPLv4 that addresses the Red Hat issue but leaves out the changes in GPLv3 is likely a non-starter because those that have chosen a GPLv3 or later license will object.

    Given the thousands of contributors to the Linux kernel, is an upgrade to a GPL version higher than v2 even possible? I’ve got no idea, but I’m curious of any insights.

    • meteokr@community.adiquaints.moe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Given the thousands of contributors to the Linux kernel, is an upgrade to a GPL version higher than v2 even possible? I’ve got no idea, but I’m curious of any insights.

      This is functionally impossible, because all current and prior contributors have to agree to the relicense. Should they not, an utterly massive legal and logistical headache will occur that I don’t think anyone would attempt. As any and all code from anyone who does not agree must be removed/replaced. The mother of all Forks.

      I am not a lawyer, but I have been a follower of FLOSS projects for a long time.

      • phase_change@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am not a lawyer, but I have been a follower of FLOSS projects for a long time.

        Me too. I know what I’m suggesting is functionally impossible. I’m wondering if it could be done in compliance with the GPL.

        All of those contributors have done so using language that says GPLv2 or higher. Specifically says you can modify or redistribute under GPLv2 or later versions. So nothing stops the Linux Foundation from asking new contributors to contribute under the GPLv4 and then releasing the combined work of the new kernel under GPLv4.

        The old code would still be available under the GPLv2, but I suspect subsequent releases could be released under a later version and still comply with original contributions.

        Again, I know it won’t happen, just like I believe Red Hat’s behavior is within the rules of the GPL. I’d love to hear arguments as to how Red Hat is violating the GPL or reasons why the kernel couldn’t be released under GPLv3 or higher.