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

[oiaohm]

You clearly haven't seen what redhat is charging for its pirated gpl code.

No mSparks there is a issue with the GPL license.

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

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

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3) Make solid media shipping process slow so that when you get the disks of the source code they are 3 to 6 months out of date.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Yes this 6 steps of legal would make acquiring the source code about 5000 USD for every 3/6 months out of date copy.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.

[mSparks]

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.

Actually

Distributing software without a licence from the original author is software piracy plain and simple, doesnt matter how you spin it or try to justify it.

The gpl simply cannot be used to distribute software under those terms, section 6 of GPLv2

You might as well try and claim the office eula gives you the right to sell cracked copies of ms office. youd still be a software pirate, no matter how much you cry that the crack is a good modification and contributes significantly to ms office.

You've also already had this explained to you multiple times.

Plus, not long now before FC40 flops worse than the latest disney movie. Im just saying replacing xrandr with startup command options isnt something that will stop that.

[oiaohm]

The gpl simply cannot be used to distribute software under those terms, section 6 of GPLv2

Someone need to learn how to read a contract with "Malicious Compliance".

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

Section 6 of GPL v2.0. You would be thinking the section I have highlighted right.

A support contract is always going to impose extra restrictions. So correct thing todo is cancel the support contract as soon as user decides to use these rights so that the support contract does not interfere with the right of the user to do the GPLv2.0 terms.

Yes the Malicious Compliance reading says what Redhat is doing is exactly obeying GPLv2.0 by cutting you off as soon as you attempt to disturber the source code because they have to cancel the support contract to be inline with GPLv2.0 to make sure no term in the support contract interferes with your right to carry out GPLv2.0. So Redhat cutting you off when you want to distribute source code to third parties is obeying section 6 of GPLv2 as you pointed to mSparks.

Yes it a bit of a problem that mSparks cannot read.

As I said GPL license need some extras to prevent Malicious Compliance interpretations.

Redhat is not distributing without a license. The problem is IBM legal is going to read GPL licenses following the rules of Malicious Compliance interpretation. Yes how is the most asshole way I can read the license is basically Malicious Compliance.

[Alexmitter]

its pirated gpl code.

You clearly have lost any touch with reality. Read the GPL for f*** sakes.

[mSparks]

A support contract is always going to impose extra restrictions..

Which triggers section 4 and makes them software pirates.

[dragon321]

not having a useful way to run linux applications pretty much counts it out of operating systems you'd call a linux distribution.

I mean, if running kubernates clusters on android and chromeos is your thing, that's fine, dont let me stop you, but the general name for them is linux derivatives rather than distros.

So only X11 applications are "real Linux applications"? Guess all those CLI utilities are not real Linux binaries. And Windows with X11 server becomes Linux distribution.

Aside from that Xwayland stays in RHEL 10. X11 applications will continue to work.

[oiaohm]

Which triggers section 4 and makes them software pirates.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

Provide support license as Redhat does is not copy, modify, sub-license or distribute altering.

mSparks still cannot read. Where does section 4 say that the distribute servers cannot have a login. Nothing. What of section 4 says that you have to keep providing source code to everyone and cannot be selective again nothing.

Section 4 is restricted to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute that does not interact with redhat license conditions.

https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Enterprise_Agreement_Webversion_NA_English_20211109.pdf

Enterprise Agreement for every country is on the redhat website for everyone to read.

Section 6 is broader than Section 4. Section 4 does not interact with Red-hat Enterprise agreements Section 6 does.

mSparks the point you don't get is the problem why Redhat cancels users subscription to Redhat services is section 6 of GPL. What is in Section 6 is broader than Section 4.

Yes canceling the subscription is Redhat just being over careful.

"Malicious Compliance" mSparks this includes doing actions based on the very slightest possibility that something is wrong with no true evidence that anything is wrong. This is where you are caught pointing to section 4 because you go though Redhat license there is no problem with Section 4 and the Redhat Enterprise Agreements.

Next post quote section of the Redhat Enterprise Agreement with the section of GPL license it conflicts with I will allow you to use any version of GPL.

Lot of claims Redhat is doing the wrong thing no one person is quoting Redhat license issue because there is not one.

Redhat/IBM is just doing "Malicious Compliance" what is using any excuse to cancel the support contract on anyone who decides to release the Redhat source code and GPL license does not protect you from this form of punitive action.

mSparks you software pirate claim is not based on fact. Redhat distribute in conformance with the license.

The license GPL does not say that Redhat/IBM has to distribute to everyone and in fact the license does not forbid them from picking and choosing who they distribute to. Yes as long as they give you the source code up to the last version you had a license to get Redhat/IBM has meet it GPL requirements.

mSparks please note "Malicious Compliance" is not a good thing and can in fact be illegal in it own right because this can fall under unfair trade that monopolies and the like get done for.

Illegal shipping the source is not the only way you can be illegal. You are just way too narrow minded mSparks.

[mSparks]

Provide support license as Redhat does is not copy, modify, sub-license or distribute altering.

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.

[jacob]

Which triggers section 4 and makes them software pirates.

Absolutely not. Eben Moglen has addressed this several times: the GPL is a plain licence, not a contract and not an agreement. It has nothing to do with support contracts or subscriptions. RedHat doesn't violate the GPL because they make the source code available to their customers and don't prevent the customers from modifying and/or redistributing the software further. That doing so may trigger the revocation of some additional contract that is not subject to the GPL has nothing to do with the GPL, which only applies to the software as such, nothing more and nothing less. RedHat's behavior may be considered user hostile, monopolistic and whatever you like, but it's 100% legal and GPL compliant.

[mSparks]

the GPL is a plain licence, not a contract and not an agreement. It has nothing to do with support contracts or subscriptions. RedHat doesn't violate the GPL because they make the source code available to their customers

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.