3 ms·
Your argument is circular. And “mostly sponsored” is just another way of saying sponsored. Just because you sponsor something does not mean you own it. It does
by goolz 3y ago
Your argument is circular.
And “mostly sponsored” is just another way of saying sponsored. Just because you sponsor something does not mean you own it. It does not really give you many rights as I understand. Because you are a sponsor, not an investor.
You make the argument for GCC but that is a piece of GNU which I feel furthers my point. Cool, RHEL put some money into an already free and open piece of software… that makes them exempt from violating the GPL?
edit: Stallman, any thoughts?
- pjmlp 3y agoMostly sponsored means where the contributors get they money from. They aren't violating the GPL as per legal point of view. Whatever morals people think should go beyond legal matters is wishful thinking. Anyone is also welcome to up their game and pay the projects Red-Hat is putting money on. Whose the first?
- goolz 3y agoFair enough, IANAL so I guess I let emotion get the best of me. That said as of v3 of the GPL: “ You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License.” I guess I am curious what the legal reasoning is behind them skirting it is.