4 ms·
It absolute is a threat and intimidation. The situation with the indie developer is not comparable. The massive power asymmetry matters. It just shows that the
by mike_hock 3y ago
It absolute is a threat and intimidation. The situation with the indie developer is not comparable. The massive power asymmetry matters.
It just shows that the correct fix isn't some dumb clause that just says "this thing that Redhat did is now forbidden."
A cleverer fix might be to require that the source code be made publicly available.
- jzb 3y ago"The massive power asymmetry matters." Rules for thee but not for me? What's the boundary for company size that forces public release of code vs. allowing a small company to choose its customers? If Red Hat's customers find the situation intolerable, they can and will stop paying Red Hat and do business elsewhere. It's not, by and large, Red Hat's customers that are squawking about this - it's people who have decided they're entitled to the clones and are actively undermining Red Hat.
- hyperhopper 3y agoYes, that's kind of how intimidation works. The mafia doesn't get to claim the shopkeeper is intimidating them.
- threeseed 3y agoa) Red Hat's customers are not tiny. There is no massive power asymmetry. b) Red Hat is not threatening or intimidating anyone any more than the GPL is. It is simply them defining under what terms you can use their product.