AlmaLinux No Longer Aims For 1:1 Compatibility With RHEL

[mSparks]

They have not added any additional restrictions. You can freely download as much Red Hat source code as you want from the Red Hat download portal.

No you cant
https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Appe...h_20230309.pdf

Unauthorized use of the Subscription Services includes: (a) only purchasing or renewing Subscription Services based on some of the total number of Units, (b) splitting or applying one Software Subscription to two or more Units, (c) providing Subscription Services (in whole or in part) to third parties, (d) using Subscription Services in connection with any redistribution of Software or (e) using Subscription Services to support or maintain any non-Red Hat Software products without purchasing Subscription Services for each such instance (collectively, “Unauthorized Subscription Services Uses”).

Which means no one can use the red hat download portal for the distribution or download of modified GPL software without being software pirates.
They do, so they are,
both Red Hat, and anyone using the Red Hat portal to download/distribute modified GPL software.

They can and did use it for the distribution of unmodified GPL software, which was the situation before they stopped updating CentOS with their modifications, but that is no longer possible without a significant risk of a court summons for software piracy in the not to distant future.

With the announcement in the OP, Alma Linux have shown they very rightly decided not to support software piracy.

[novideo]

It does however require them to release that source code without additional restrictions with prominent notices of any changes they have made. The source they distribute via redhat accounts attaches additional restrictions on source and binary redistribution, which they cannot use the GPL for.

They have not added any additional restrictions. You can freely download as much Red Hat source code as you want from the Red Hat download portal, and share it with as many people as you want to, using your rights under the GPL. However, if you do that, Red Hat can kick you off the portal, and not send any more updates or provide any more support. This is 100% compliant with the GPL. The GPL only requires making the source code available for the current version of the program, not any future version, and certainly doesn't require the developer to provide support to the users.

[mSparks]

The GPL only requires them to release source code to their users, not to the general public.

It does however require them to release that source code without additional restrictions with prominent notices of any changes they have made. The source they distribute via redhat accounts attaches additional restrictions on source and binary redistribution, which they cannot use the GPL for.

That was "probably not violating the GPL" when the source and binaries were available elsewhere and all the redhat account covered was the red hat brand and artwork. Now its not available elsewhere there is no doubt they have no licence to distribute modified versions of other peoples work exclusively under redhat accounts.

[novideo]

they are not in compliance.
Following the depreciation of the source repo for centos they are no longer in compliance with the stipulations regarding source distribution without any additional restrictions, which voids the gpl licence for the binaries they are distributing.

The GPL only requires them to release source code to their users, not to the general public.

[mSparks]

What law are they violating? They are 100% in compliance with the GPL.

they are not in compliance.
Following the depreciation of the source repo for centos they are no longer in compliance with the stipulations regarding source distribution without any additional restrictions, which voids the gpl licence for the binaries they are distributing.

[novideo]

By definition GPL'd software does not enjoy copyright protection because it is by its very nature in the public domain.

Software licensed under the GPL is copyrighted, not in the public domain at all.

[novideo]

They are violating the law, they don't have a licence to violate. Alma Linux are not going to be the only ones to notice this, the vast majority of Redhats customers legal departents will take notice as well.

What law are they violating? They are 100% in compliance with the GPL.

[mSparks]

Please show me which section you specifically interprets as proving that Red Hat is "pirating" software.

Further, do you know what position GNU, the FSF that tried to enforce the GPL and the EFF have taken with regards to Red Hat's move? NONE, not a peep out of them, I can't find a single statement from anyone them offering an opinion, much less a denouncement:

That's one of the reasons I posted you those links earlier.
RedHat became software pirates in the last few weeks/months, before these recent chances they were "probably not".

Now the laywers are drawing up phat cases to make phat fees.
legal cases take years.
the two/three copyright case examples I posted were first reported 4 or 5 years or so before the users and distributers of the pirated software were actually hit with Jail time and massive fines.
Oracle vs Google dates back to 2003 and was decided April 2021

The question of justifying continued use of RH distributions is not will you actually be hit with Jail time and/or massive fines - quite possibly you wont, although you may well attract hefty legal fees at a minimum.
But when there is absolutely zero benefit of taking that risk, the choice is really simple. Switch to Oracle Linux, drop 1:1 matching and cancel any payments to Redhat.

I think Red Hat knows the GPL much better than you and is on very solid footing with their actions.

I wouldn't be surprised if the guys making the decisions thought exactly the same as you did a few days ago...
Not sure why you think that justifies you personally risking taking on huge legals fees, fines and jail time for them tho.
Assuming you are a Redhat customer. But if you aren't why would you care one way or another?

[sophisticles]

Redhat are distributing non licensed, copyrighted software.
The GPL doesnt apply to them because they refuse to abide by its terms.
There isnt really another name for that other than
software piracy.

Can I impose on you to think before you post?

You claim that "The GPL doesnt apply to them because they refuse to abide by its terms" then claim that's it's "software piracy", if it doesn't apply to them then how can it be piracy?

Have you actually read the GPL:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

Please show me which section you specifically interprets as proving that Red Hat is "pirating" software.

Further, do you know what position GNU, the FSF that tried to enforce the GPL and the EFF have taken with regards to Red Hat's move? NONE, not a peep out of them, I can't find a single statement from anyone them offering an opinion, much less a denouncement:

https://www.fsf.org/

https://www.gnu.org/

https://www.eff.org/

As an funny side-note, do you know who used to fund the FSF up until 2021? Red Hat:

https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hat-statement-about-richard-stallmans-return-free-software-foundation-board

https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/26/redhat_fsf_funding_richard_stallman/

I think Red Hat knows the GPL much better than you and is on very solid footing with their actions.

This is what is referred to as a checkmate.

[mSparks]

What's hilarious is that you accused Red Hat of software piracy then provided a link to an article about the Navy using non-licensed software as proof of your claim.

As i said, very "special".

Redhat are distributing non licensed, copyrighted software.
The GPL doesnt apply to them because they refuse to abide by its terms.
There isnt really another name for that other than
software piracy.