Until someone gives legal notice to IBM lawyers forcing Red Hat source code to be released pulicly, all of this debating over it means jack nothing.
If nobody takes IBM to court, the matter is settled and all developers must accept Red Hat’s choices.
If they dismiss the online talk, ignore all criticisms, and nobody pays for a lawsuit, the case is done and finished.
I’m not trying skip over your points, as I said from my first first, everybody can talk all they want, who has the power of persuasion or legal force to change IBM’s decision?
I may be wrong, but I believe only the Linux Foundation is a position to call IBM CTO, President, whoever, and say “We heard about the changes to with holding Red Hat’s source code, you will not be doing that, it shall remain public. If you want to discuss this further, please send your most expensive lawyers to our offices and we will explain in detail why you won’t be doing that.”
The likely retaliation RH/IBM would take is simply banning the account, not starting a lawsuit immediately. However, rights holders may attempt sue before or after such an event, but likely after.
RH thinks they have the right to distribute code in this manner, and they can keep doing so until challenged in court. You can do actions in general without asking the court every time, I think the same applies here as well.
I personally think it is a violation in a strict sense, but at the same time I don’t think it really matters too much realistically. Stream is upstream RHEL, and they are very similar, and at some points in time, should be identical. It’s also not clear what you get exactly by suing RH/IBM. The likely case is that they settle or rule to have that section removed from the ToS.
Until someone gives legal notice to IBM lawyers forcing Red Hat source code to be released pulicly, all of this debating over it means jack nothing.
If nobody takes IBM to court, the matter is settled and all developers must accept Red Hat’s choices.
If they dismiss the online talk, ignore all criticisms, and nobody pays for a lawsuit, the case is done and finished.
I’m not trying skip over your points, as I said from my first first, everybody can talk all they want, who has the power of persuasion or legal force to change IBM’s decision?
I may be wrong, but I believe only the Linux Foundation is a position to call IBM CTO, President, whoever, and say “We heard about the changes to with holding Red Hat’s source code, you will not be doing that, it shall remain public. If you want to discuss this further, please send your most expensive lawyers to our offices and we will explain in detail why you won’t be doing that.”
deleted by creator
The likely retaliation RH/IBM would take is simply banning the account, not starting a lawsuit immediately. However, rights holders may attempt sue before or after such an event, but likely after.
RH thinks they have the right to distribute code in this manner, and they can keep doing so until challenged in court. You can do actions in general without asking the court every time, I think the same applies here as well.
I personally think it is a violation in a strict sense, but at the same time I don’t think it really matters too much realistically. Stream is upstream RHEL, and they are very similar, and at some points in time, should be identical. It’s also not clear what you get exactly by suing RH/IBM. The likely case is that they settle or rule to have that section removed from the ToS.