2 ms·

It's important to be accurate when considering the actual situation. With that in mind, please elaborate on the phrase describing "sources" as though they are R

It's important to be accurate when considering the actual situation. With that in mind, please elaborate on the phrase describing "sources" as though they are Red Hat's "very own". Is this honestly the case, or are you forgetting something truly relevant about the sources which Red Hat uses to build its products, and the legal obligations which apply to any users of those sources?

edgyquant 3y ago
You have to pay RedHat to use its software. Only giving source code to paying customers doesn’t violate the GPL because of this. You only have to release sources to the users of your software. RedHat has been giving them away to everyone; but they are not legally obligated to do so
- Phrodo_00 3y ago
  As an interesting addition, Red Hat can't stop their customers from sharing GPL and LGPL package sources.
  - parasense 3y ago
    Correct. To add to this, Red Hat does offers a free developer tier subscription, which allows individuals to download Enterprise Linux free of costs, but with strings attached. One of those strings, somewhere in the fine print is legal language about the restrictions of redistributing the software at the free tier. I'm not clear on the exact details, so I won't elaborate & please don't quote me, but it's my understanding that it's somehow a violation of terms redistribute. I'm not sure how that works with the GPL, and I'm guessing the bits ARE still shareable under the GPL, but the separate contract with Red Hat makes that a breach of contract. The mind boggles.
totallywrong 3y ago
"Very own" as in you've put in the work to curate, test, and bundle together a ton of disparate software to create a cohesive final product. Let's not pretend that there isn't a ton of value in that which these other companies are taking advantage of.

2 ms·

It's important to be accurate when considering the actual situation. With that in mind, please elaborate on the phrase describing "sources" as though they are R

by omniglottal 3y ago

edgyquant 3y ago
You have to pay RedHat to use its software. Only giving source code to paying customers doesn’t violate the GPL because of this. You only have to release sources to the users of your software. RedHat has been giving them away to everyone; but they are not legally obligated to do so
- Phrodo_00 3y ago
  As an interesting addition, Red Hat can't stop their customers from sharing GPL and LGPL package sources.
  - parasense 3y ago
    Correct. To add to this, Red Hat does offers a free developer tier subscription, which allows individuals to download Enterprise Linux free of costs, but with strings attached. One of those strings, somewhere in the fine print is legal language about the restrictions of redistributing the software at the free tier. I'm not clear on the exact details, so I won't elaborate & please don't quote me, but it's my understanding that it's somehow a violation of terms redistribute. I'm not sure how that works with the GPL, and I'm guessing the bits ARE still shareable under the GPL, but the separate contract with Red Hat makes that a breach of contract. The mind boggles.
totallywrong 3y ago
"Very own" as in you've put in the work to curate, test, and bundle together a ton of disparate software to create a cohesive final product. Let's not pretend that there isn't a ton of value in that which these other companies are taking advantage of.