4 ms·
Your notion of ethics is unequivocally and objectively wrong. Red Hat derives massive value up to and including its very existence and every single penny that p
by michaelmrose 4y ago
Your notion of ethics is unequivocally and objectively wrong. Red Hat derives massive value up to and including its very existence and every single penny that passes through its hands from participation in the larger open source ecosystem that comes with the obligation to share their work not only with random bob hacker but with people like Rocky Linux, Alma, and even folks like Oracle.
You cannot acknowledge that they owe everything based on willing participation in an ecosystem where they wherein they openly made a promise and follow that up with the idea that its immoral for anyone to rely on such a promise. It's logically and morally inconsistent.
Gross is just an emotive label you have slapped on after incorrectly concluding that such actions are unethical.
- freedomben 4y agoYou have set up a terrifically easy strawman to knock down[1]. Nice job. But you are "unequivocally and objectively wrong" about what I think. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
- michaelmrose 4y agoYou can't argue a position by linking to a Wikipedia article about a logical fallacy. It cannot be unethical to rely on a freely given promise that the other side has derived substantial value from. Red Hat received the entire basis of their business by virtue of their side of that promise they cannot and indeed haven't tried to withhold performance of their obligation in that regard. Under what ethical theory do you propose that creating downstream distros is unethical? Is it likewise unethical for Ubuntu to exist? If your answer differs why?