@gamingonlinux https://mastodon.online/@mmanciop/110612227056525718

@gamingonlinux The whole situation feels kind of gross honestly. It feels wrong they’re payealling the source code. If say Arch or Debian did that it would spark massive outrage.
But copying someone else’s work 1 to 1 also feels gross. There doesn’t seem to be any winners here.

@gamingonlinux Actually, for any projects that are GPLv3 (like the GNU coreutils), putting extra restrictions on the source code redistribution violates the GPLv3. Unless they want to separate all of the GPLv3 projects from the other stuff, they will be in violation of the GPLv3.

@gamingonlinux
The situation is borderline and some pieces should be tested on a tribunal to know what actually holds. Specifically "ability to redistribute without restrictions"; is the menace of stopping a contract such a restriction? We don't really know.

And of course it gets even more complicated, there is an extensive article that tries to outline the situation better: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/

@gamingonlinux IMHO what they are doing might not be illegal (it's legal putting their sources behind their customer portal, it might be not legal prohibiting GPL sources redistribution since that puts an additional restriction to the GPL terms, and the GPL explicitly prohibits that). But what they are doing **is** wrong on many levels, and I think it will be bad for their business in the long run.

@gamingonlinux it's wrong when you're a company with a 25 year legacy built on top of open source principles and you're just trying to get rid of it for the money.

it's like Valve saying that they will move the Deck to Windows and will completely stop supporting Linux because 99% of the Linux users on Steam are freeloaders.