Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
Unpopular opinion. I agree with him.
As long as they continue to follow the gpl which they are, and contribute back to upstream I do not see the issue. It is entirely within their right to charge for free as in freedom not free as in beer software. This is pretty much exactly what the gpl says.
That being said this could be the start of a slippery slope for red hat and Foss business models and will certainly be keeping an eye on it.
IMO the general understanding had been that you could charge but had to share code with the people you distributed to, but they were free to re-share it. Red Hat punishes customers who do this and even generally reserves the right to sue them, which seems pretty anti-GPL.
The re-sharing was always a risk of trying to sell GPL software and requires a compelling reason why your product is better than the alternative to attract customers.
I get it. It sucks when Nutanix and Cisco are building platforms on CentOS and NASA is signing contracts with Rocky.
IMO the general understanding is that you could charge but had to share code with the people you distributed to, but they were free to re-share it. Red Hat punishes customers who do this and even generally reserves the right to sue them. Preventing redistribution seems pretty anti-GPL.
The re-sharing was always a risk of trying to sell GPL software and requires a compelling reason why your product is better than the alternative to attract customers.
Totally agree that gpl software needs to have the right to share. However I do think redhat has the right to decide who they would like to continue to sell to. If you haven't bought the newest version of their code I don't see why people think they should automatically get the right to always get the updates other than what they payed for as a customer.
Suing for exercising your rights on the other hand is insane and imho a clear gpl voilation which should not be tolerated