40 ms·
> It doesn’t mean i have to distribute it to you for ever. I edited my comment as it’s apparently misunderstood by everyone. Your final paragraph was exactly
by Semaphor 3y ago
> It doesn’t mean i have to distribute it to you for ever.
I edited my comment as it’s apparently misunderstood by everyone.
Your final paragraph was exactly what I meant with going against the spirit of the GPL.
- sanxiyn 3y agoWhich spirit? The spirit of the GPL is four essential freedoms. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html You should be able to cite the number between 1 and 4.
- Semaphor 3y agoSure. 4
- sanxiyn 3y agoHow is it against freedom 4? You can distribute modified versions to the end of the world. You just don't get access to future modifications made by Red Hat. You are not entitled, neither legally nor morally, to Red Hat's future modifications.
- Semaphor 3y agoAs I said in another comment [0]: > Sure, not legally. Just de-facto. Or to use some reductio ad absurdum, you can exercise all your freedoms, but you will be killed for it, is not very free, is it? [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36583491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36583491
- geerlingguy 3y agoIt is useless trying to use either logic or reason here. It is just legalistic rambling and I've found it better to not engage this line of (non) reasoning.