Cheering for Oracle is certainly an unexpected turn of events, but here we are. They are absolutely right that RedHatIBM’s motivations are simply to kill competition and obtain vendor lock-in by ending RHEL compatibility. RedHat is truly dead.
Cheering for Oracle is certainly an unexpected turn of events, but here we are. They are absolutely right that RedHatIBM’s motivations are simply to kill competition and obtain vendor lock-in by ending RHEL compatibility. RedHat is truly dead.
I agree that all that can be done is sue them and lets the courts decide what the meaning of the GPL contract is.
I’m surprised at the link you gave since it is written by someone who agrees with my take, not yours and RedHat’s. And you stated clearly that RedHat absolutely is not violating the GPL, when that is actually just your opinion. The real tldr quote of that article is:
Debates continue, even today, in copyleft expert circles, whether this model itself violates GPL. There is, however, no doubt that this provision is not in the spirit of the GPL agreements.
Time for a GPL version 4: no extraneous agreements that nullify GPL terms.
My apologies if I seem too hostile.
If you deny redistribution, you are violating GPL. Do you agree with that?
So the question is then, does telling someone to promise not to do something, and punishing them if they do, violate there right to it?
That is just denying redistribution with extra steps.
If Microsoft is using its bot to push an agenda, that is worth talking about. You won’t be able to convince everyone to not listen to bots.
I enjoyed asking Microsoft, I mean Bing, how to install Linux from scratch. It is actually really helpful and even expressed hope that I would “enjoy the process and learn from it.”
(i use arch, btw)