This is dishonest framing. From what I understand, Red Hat’s patches haven’t become proprietary, they’rejust not publically available to non-subscribers. Of course, subscribers could share the code with others — as it is libre. That is not what “closed source” means, not at all!
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2023
12 points (65.8% liked)
Linux
7768 readers
26 users here now
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I agree the title is misleading but the statement put out by Alma/Rocky says that according to the current TOS it would not be possible for them to redistribute binaries obtained from the customer portal.
i mean, it's gpl right? which mean someone can make a fork of it
That’s not what happened. All gpl code is open or illegal, and they’re not that dumb.
This is one of those things where you really gotta do some research instead of just going by the deliberately misleading headline.
Red Hat subscribers can access and even share the code.
That's why I hate companies and big techs
This is NOT true. Red Hat is still following the GPL.
Now I'm glad they passed on my application. Get fucked redhat
Nope. This is a terrible hot take that misses the fundamental spirit behind the GPL.
It helps to consider “the software” as a single snapshot in time, with the GPL’s intention that the consumer may make their own fixes, rebuild, and redistribute. Check.
Remember: “Free as in freedom, not free as in beer.” Selling open source software has always been explicitly allowed, as long as you make the source available to those who receive it. Check.
What the GPL does NOT provide is guaranteed access to maintenance and future versions of said software. Again, it applies to a snapshot, as delivered.
In a nutshell, the customer receives open source everything they FOR A PARTICULAR VERSION.
I see no problem — either in spirit or letter — in Redhat’s approach here.