• fortified_banana@beehaw.org
    7·
    1 year ago

    When I say we abide by the various open source licenses that apply to our code, I mean it.

    So he’s saying that Red Hat intends to abide by licenses such as the GNU GPL, and yet…

    Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source…

    Red Hat is claiming that redistribution (which is explicitly allowed and encouraged by the GPL) is a threat to open source. They are also threatening to penalize customers who do exercise the rights granted to them by the licenses that Red Hat claims that they will “abide by”.

    According to Red Hat the GNU GPL is a threat to open source. And they think this won’t make people angry?

    • comicallycluttered@beehaw.org
      1·
      1 year ago

      Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source…

      This is beginning to sound like they’re calling open source piracy.

      “Noooo, you can’t copy it. That’s not fair.”

      Actually, they’re beginning to sound a lot like Microsoft. It’s their job to complain about FOSS but still contribute.

      Hm. Perhaps Red Hat is trying to take Microsoft’s place. In that case…

      “Simply ignoring licenses, without acknowledging their terms and dismissing open source practices while still contributing to the FOSS community, represents a threat to closed source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to closed source…”

      Yo, Microsoft. Don’t worry about the Activision acquisition. You have new competition to acquire.

      Sarcasm aside, this is what we should have expected once they were acquired by IBM. You know, that company which has only ever behaved in an ethical manner for the last… century? Some fun history there. People should read up about it. Especially the '30s and '40s. And then jump to the '80s and '90s where they seem to still be stuck because they’re kind of pulling a “pirates of Silicon Valley” thing here.

  • Melody Fwygon@lemmy.one
    3·
    1 year ago

    Not surprising that RHEL is now trashing every FLOSS license it’s beholden to. They’ve violated the licenses and I genuinely someone over at GNU or something gets to goosing them with lawyers.

    • khalil@beehaw.org
      1·
      1 year ago

      They’ve violated the licenses

      Did they? Because as far as I know they’re complying with the GPL and other licenses, since everybody that gets their RHEL license (and the software/binaries) also gets the sources. Or am I mistaken?

      I don’t think the license says ‘grant everybody a copy of your source code’, only the ones that actually bought access to the binaries RHEL provides

      • EvilColeslaw@beehaw.org
        1·
        1 year ago

        That’s fine, it’s the threats about terminating support agreements or dev accounts if you redistribute the source code that’s stepping really close or over the line. The license gives you the right (and in some cases the responsibility) to redistribute.

  • Naatan@beehaw.org
    3·
    1 year ago

    Contributing back is besides the point. GPL is infectious, so all of their code which they aren’t releasing the source of is also considered GPL. So unless they release all of the source code they are still non compliant and I have to imagine they’re wel aware of this.

  • Kerb@discuss.tchncs.de
    1·
    1 year ago

    From what i get,

    It seems like they are pissed at oracle specifically,
    Selling a oracle branded rhel clone with minor tweaks and a oracle certified sticker.

    And the other downstream distros are just collateral damage.

    Obviously wouldn’t make it better
    (But imo more understandable)

  • IcedCoffeeBitch@beehaw.org
    1·
    1 year ago

    To me everything seems to point to the fact that community developed distros, even if funded by corporations, seems to be the best option moving forward.