• 1 Post
  • 19 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle

  • Brilliant man, love his music.

    He’s always been EXTREME anti-authoritarian, anti-war, anti-establishment. Consistent, at least, in his positions. I don’t always agree, but I respect.

    And without full context or quotes, I will not rush to judgement — an extreme man who takes extreme positions, meant to challenge.

    And no matter what they tell you, it’s possible to be against the actions of the Israeli state without being antisemitic.


















  • That’s a fair point, and worthy of deliberation.

    However, I would continue to argue that if Redhat does not restrict parties’ rights to the source code they’ve been given, then they’ve satisfied the GPL.

    It is my understanding (at least initially) that the GPL was meant to solidify the end user’s rights to the software they have, so that they’re not left with an unfixable binary executable.

    And again, there are no rights granted by the GPL for FUTURE versions.


  • I can’t believe how many people fundamentally misunderstand the spirit behind the GPL.

    It helps to consider “the software” as a single snapshot in time, with the GPL’s intention that the consumer may make their own fixes, rebuild, and redistribute. Check.

    Remember: “Free as in freedom, not free as in beer.” Selling open source software has always been explicitly allowed, as long as you make the source available to those who receive it. Check.

    What the GPL does NOT provide is guaranteed access to maintenance and future versions of said software. Again, it applies to a snapshot, as delivered.

    In a nutshell, the customer receives open source everything they FOR A PARTICULAR VERSION.

    I see no problem — either in spirit or letter — in Redhat’s approach here.


  • Nope. This is a terrible hot take that misses the fundamental spirit behind the GPL.

    It helps to consider “the software” as a single snapshot in time, with the GPL’s intention that the consumer may make their own fixes, rebuild, and redistribute. Check.

    Remember: “Free as in freedom, not free as in beer.” Selling open source software has always been explicitly allowed, as long as you make the source available to those who receive it. Check.

    What the GPL does NOT provide is guaranteed access to maintenance and future versions of said software. Again, it applies to a snapshot, as delivered.

    In a nutshell, the customer receives open source everything they FOR A PARTICULAR VERSION.

    I see no problem — either in spirit or letter — in Redhat’s approach here.