3 ms·
As long as they comply with the licenses, which they do, that's largely irrelevant I'm afraid.
by totallywrong 3y ago
As long as they comply with the licenses, which they do, that's largely irrelevant I'm afraid.
- soneil 3y agoI'm a little confused how this new move still complies with many licences. As a paying customer you receive access the sources, as you're supposed to - but under contractual terms that you can't share them. Take the GPL as the most famous example. Providing me GPL'd sources that I'm not allowed to redistribute under the same terms definitely feels like it's against the spirit of the agreement. I'm too warm-blooded to argue whether it's under the letter.
- totallywrong 3y agoIt's been said elsewhere, you can legally redistribute, but then they will end your subscription, as those are the terms you agree to.
- soneil 3y agoSo the restriction isn't on exercising your rights on what you've received, which would be under the terms of the licence - it's on their willingness to provide you with anything else, which would be under the terms of their contract. I think I'll stick with my position that it's not within the spirit of the licence. (But I'd agree that this change has no impact on this.)
- pg_1234 3y agoNot just the spirit, the GPLv2 terms include: "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."[1] So if they forbid sharing, they can't distribute Linux themselves. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoIt's legally irrelevant, but if you want an explanation for "justifiable anger" it's extremely relevant.