XWayland Adds "-Output" Option For Better Rootful Fullscreen Control

[jacob]

To use the GPL as a licence to distribute object code they have to make the source code available to any 3rd party, not just their customers. (Section 3b)

valid for at least three years- that's the point, anything else is software piracy, distributed without a licence from the original authors.

They do exactly that, you can freely download src.rpm files.

[mSparks]

They do exactly that, you can freely download src.rpm files.

They did.

then they stopped, in june 2023

https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-stream

which is when they moved from sketchy to blatent pirates.

Full chain being
contrary to section 3b, which requires them to make the source available to any 3rd party, they restrict access to the source code to their customers using the portal sublicence.
this is covered under section 6 - no restrictions.
this triggers section 4 - their licence is made void.

by distributing object code with no licence to do so they are contravening of every piece of copyright law ever written, colloquially referred to as software piracy.

In the US thats a criminal offence, commercial copyright theft, with jail time (although, aiui, they are currently protected by agreements with the US government to restrict access for the Chinese, it's still piracy)

fuck software pirates, they are stupid anyway, which imho is where "good ideas" like replacing xrandr with commandline startup options comes from.

[oiaohm]

No, they have to provide a link to the corresponding source code without a support sublicense, for at least three years (section 3b) - that's the point, anything else is piracy, distributed without a license from the original authors.

To use the GPL as a licence to distribute object code they have to make the source code available to any 3rd party, not just their customers. (Section 3b)

valid for at least three years- that's the point, anything else is software piracy, distributed without a licence from the original authors.

Someone cannot read again mSparks do take note of the bit in bold I highlighted.

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Redhat does 3a not 3b. Yes only one section of section 3 has to be done. Yes 3a has no term of access requirement as long as you can access source code when you got the binary Redhat is free and clear under 3a.

GPL license allows you to pick between 3a 3b and 3c.

So again mSparks you don't have a point. 3a has no requirement to give to third parties either.

Really mSparks you really need to read complete GPL license sections at least if you keep on cherry picking you will keep on making arguments that don't hold up.

medium customarily used for software interchange<< https://github.com/gdevic/minix1 thank you minix for making this paper because source code of this was appendix of a book.

Yes the srpms Redhat provides from repositories makes Red-hat tick all the boxes for 3a. Yes repository is the medium customarily used for software interchange.

GPL licenses are flawed.

[mSparks]

Redhat does 3a.

where on this page do you think they do 3a?

https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/download

rhel-9.3-x86_64-dvd.iso is not accompanied by any source code. (the source DVD is another 16GB)

GPL license allows you to pick between 3a 3b and 3c.

3c is only applicable for non commercial distributions.

It means I can wetransfer or bittorrent you rhel-9.3-x86_64-dvd.iso, along with the offer given me by redhat to download the source, and it wouldn't be piracy.

Only I can't give you that offer, because they dont make one, because they are software pirates.

[MrCooper]

Shouldn't this have been done as an environment variable, akin to Zaphod Mode where you set DISPLAY? Locking the value in when your Wayland session starts doesn't seem very useful.

Rootful Xwayland isn't launched by the Wayland compositor itself (or even if it was, the compositor could set different command line options per instance), so it's not set in stone at session start.

Besides, environment variable vs command line option doesn't really make any difference for the issue you describe. Either way it's fixed for the lifetime of each rootful Xwayland instance.

[oiaohm]

where on this page do you think they do 3a?

https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/download

rhel-9.3-x86_64-dvd.iso is not accompanied by any source code. (the source DVD is another 16GB).

This is still mSparks having a reading problem.

Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange

Accompany it with does not mean it has to be the same disc image. Also medium customarily used for software interchange can be the repository so not a ISO,

Redhat do 3a in a "Malicious Compliance" way. Everything Redhat is doing is legacy from GPL license terms.

It means I can wetransfer or bittorrent you rhel-9.3-x86_64-dvd.iso, along with the offer given me by redhat to download the source, and it wouldn't be piracy.

When redhat does not have to give you a written offer to download the source code doing 3a. Having the source code in Redhat maintained repository and you never given a written offer means you trying to transfer the redhat ISO you are the one that end up breaching GPL not Redhat.

This is "Malicious Compliance". Nothing about GPL section 3 says that the party shipping something GPL who has done 3a has to help anyone do 3b or 3c. So here you are wanting to-do 3b and you cannot because Redhat does not do 3b and is not required to-do 3b.

Only I can't give you that offer, because they don't make one, because they are software pirates.

Big thing GPL license does not mandate Redhat make a 3b offer at all so they don't. Yes "Malicious Compliance".Redhat ticks all the boxes to be in alignment with GPL license like it or not. The way Redhat ticks the boxes makes it really hard to ship the source code but its 100 percent legal unless they get sued for monopoly actions or the like.

Of course you are failing to read what 3a in fact required so you presumed since the iso does not contain source that that Redhat has not meet the terms the ISO includes the link to use the srpm repository and that all that required to meet 3a for redhat.

mSparks where in 3a does it say that the source and binary has to be on the same media. The catch is it does not the Accompany does not legally mean same media.
Medium customarily used for software interchange is allowed to be internet server somewhere. Nothing says that a login to use the Medium customarily used for software interchange cannot have a login.

[mSparks]

mSparks where in 3a does it say that the source and binary has to be on the same media. The catch is it does not the Accompany does not legally mean same media.
Medium customarily used for software interchange is allowed to be internet server somewhere. Nothing says that a login to use the Medium customarily used for software interchange cannot have a login.

It says "accompanied by ... on a medium customarily used for software interchange", So, perversely, you can get a legal copy of RHEL-9.3 under 3a from

https://en.btdig.com/74b33ed041a1e14a7e68814aa332737bdd525368/rhel=9.3

but not from redhat.com.

Which, tbh, is comedy gold.

GPL license does not mandate Redhat

licenses do not mandate anything, they give you rights you would not otherwise have.

Like a driving licence does not "mandate" that you drive to work, but if you drive to work you must have a driving licence. But a driving licence doesn't give you the right to drive to work on the wrong side of the road at night, drunk, with your lights switched off (which is basically what redhat are doing these days), wayland and this modification are fairly good examples of why you should steer clear of people that moronic.

[oiaohm]

It says "accompanied by ... on a medium customarily used for software interchange", So, perversely, you can get a legal copy of REHL-9.3 from

but not from redhat.com.

No this is mSparks being unable to read again.

a medium customarily used for software interchange

Letter a here is critical. Redhat is able to pick the "medium customarily used for software interchange". Redhat is not required to support every "medium customarily used for software interchange".

Is redhat /ibm required to make any ISO of Red hat linux aquired from anyone other than them legal the answer is a no. The link was aquiring Redhat Linux by "medium customarily used for software interchange" that Redhat has not approved. That letter a in the GPL license meaning person shipping something in complicance with GPL only has to support 1 "medium customarily used for software interchange" no everything.

This is you attempting to extend the GPL license terms to ways they are not written mSparks.

So mSparks I would recommend removing link because you may have just posted link to software that not legal to be the wrong software interchange.

GPL is very flawed.

Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange

Remember this is what the person distributing GPL software has to do to be legal. This does not say Redhat has to provide source code to any random party getting a Redhat ISO. Instead the party who provide them with that ISO is legally on the hook to obey 3a. So mSparks with that link you gave how are you going to contact the person who put that redhat iso in the magnet link to have them give you the source code.

Basically mSparks is still proven he cannot read and attempting to make points that absolutely don't hold up legally.

Redhat srpm repo is the single "medium customarily used for software interchange" they have todo and that only for the ISO you download from redhat themselves. O you failed to create a login to download the ISO from redhat so you cannot get the srpm access this is totally legal for Redhat todo.

And the person posting the ISO did not download the srpm iso or srpm respository and post that bad luck you because you are now a pirate of GPL software. Redhat did nothing wrong you did.

"Malicious Compliance" is nasty. You just posted a pirated software link most likely because that person did not provide the source code.

Redhat has ticked the boxes of GPL like it or not.

[mSparks]

No this is mSparks being unable to read again.

Letter a here is critical.

Indeed. The mediums redhat offers is html links or a set of DVDs, since rhel-9.3-x86_64-dvd.iso on https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/download is not accompanied with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, next they would fall under 3b -> a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party

Except they dont have that written offer either.

"software pirates", all day every day.

This does not say Redhat has to provide source code to any random party getting a Redhat ISO.

Its says to use the GPL to gain the required rights to distribute other people work:

3a the source accompanies any Redhat ISO received by a random party.
3b an offer for the source accompanies a Redhat ISO received by a random party, transferable to any party and valid for 3 years.
3c any random party sending a Redhat ISO can transfer the offer from 3b (non commercial distribution only)

A legal distribution from a reputable company looks like

https://yum.oracle.com/oracle-linux-isos.html

note that the "source accompanies every ISO"
But they probably wont ship RHEL10 imho.

[qarium]

No mSparks there is a issue with the GPL license.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

Nothing about GPL says that redhat has to maintain your subscription if you decide to publish the GPL source code Redhat has provided to you.
GPL does not require releasing code to public just to your product users.
Like it or not redhat has not pirated GPL by what they are doing. Not in the spirit of FOSS would be the correct statement.
mSparks to give you a idea how flawed GPL I wills state the worst you can do legally.
1) provide a written offer of source code on solid media to users.
2) Charge a solid media production charge. This is for the media the production costs and the shipping. Yes you cannot bill for the software but you can bill like 15 dollars a disc you would think lets say you go for the most expensive disc possible with most expensive printing possible. Yes this is a m-disc style disc with CD rom capacity with fancy form of holographic label this is 50USD per disc for 650megs of data.
3) Make solid media shipping process slow so that when you get the disks of the source code they are 3 to 6 months out of date.
4) don't pack them well so discs get damaged in shipping so you have to order replacements.
5) Due to ordering source code cancel you subscription so you cannot do it again because you are no longer a user.
6) Remember GPL does not have anti bundling clause so you can now make that you have to acquire the complete set of source code highly expensive CDs even if you just want one program source code.
Yes this 6 steps of legal would make acquiring the source code about 5000 USD for every 3/6 months out of date copy.
This would be what you call 100 percent Malicious Compliance to GPL 2 and 3.
Please note I can get worse. Lets say you go that the source code will be provided on paper in book form like the original minux source code and you have are applying all the 6 points above with leather harder cover books custom bound these might take decade or two to be produced.

Just to give you a idea how bad that paper one is the 27million lines of code of the Linux kernel is just for tip of iceberg here. Its 48 lines of text per side of a A4 page. so 96 lines per double side page as per IBM standard. 281250 pages double sided or if you going evil 562500 single sided.
562500/500 to give reams 1165 now boxes /5
233 boxes of paper.
1165/300(yes 300 reams to a pallet) gives gives basically 3.8 Pallets Might as well say 5 Pallets you have to allow for the book bindings. And this is just for the Linux kernel.
Here is the final really annoying killed you use embossed printing. Every book appears to be just filled with blank pages until you run you hands over them and fell the raised text and you did not use braille because that would be too simple. Yes embossed printing can make the books extremely hard to scan.
Yes a pallet of paper not printed is 2500 USD~. So you are starting off with basically $12500 dollars just to order the source code of the kernel before you add on all the printing and binding charges and shipping. Yes multi millions of dollars for something the size of the Redhat Distribution with a major storage problem when you get it.
Lot of open source licenses need some anti-malicious compliance clauses.
mSparks the issue that what Redhat is doing is legal is the problem we need to talk about. Particularly when it only a tip of a way bigger possible iceberg Malicious Compliance. Yes I have detailed here what full Malicious Compliance to GPL starts looking like. Some people dealing with devices with embedded linux kernels from china have found themselves receiving the Linux kernel used as 2 Pallets of A4(yes they did use double sided printing) so paper as a way to obey GPL is not unheard of. Yes 6000 dollar bill to get the kernel source as 2 Pallets of A4 then having to scan all the pages to have something useful.

can you tell me if the AGPL3 is better ?
and you are fully right it is really time for a new version of this license like GPL4 and AGPL4
because you are right all these cases do sapotage the license and need to be fixed.

i would say any physical copy on CD/DVD or on Paper are obsolete and need to be banned. this would fix the most problem by just enforce a download over the internet.

"5) Due to ordering source code cancel you subscription so you cannot do it again because you are no longer a user."

this one is the hardest part to fix. how to fix this ? maybe we could say that companies who doing something like this lose the right to use the (A)GPL4 software at all. it is maybe hard to proof but any leak of a wistleblower could break their neck.