4 ms·
Yes, it does seem against the spirit of freedom 2. » The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fre
by mcny 8y ago
Yes, it does seem against the spirit of freedom 2.
» The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
But it seems strange to even think that Red Hat would do anything that violates the idea of free software. Surely there must be about angle to it that we have not considered?
- privateSFacct 8y agoThey don't want you redistributing something called Redhat Enterprise Linux after you backdoor it?
- bubblethink 8y agoThat is a different argument for a different set of circumstances pertaining to modification. To contrast, you could be a Canonical customer, and distribute the ubuntu DVDs and mirror their repos to your heart's content. You can't if you are a RH customer.
- rcdwealth 8y agoDistribution of binaries is allowed. It is another matter and subject on how to properly use trademarks.
- neltnerb 8y agoRight, I remember this coming up with Iceweasel because of Firefox trademarks. https://lwn.net/Articles/676799/ https://lwn.net/Articles/676799/
- delinka 8y agoHow's that any different from: compiling from source with malicious modifications and then branding the resulting binaries with "RedHat"?