Some mix of wrong and right, the exact proportions of which I’ll leave as an exercise to the reader.

  • meteokr@community.adiquaints.moe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source, and one that has the potential to revert open source back into a hobbyist- and hackers-only activity.

    This quote is particularly damning to me. It’s right in the preamble of the GPL “Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.” Emphasis mine. It’s a legal right, that I can redistribute it, whether or not I modify it in anyway. Stomping on my legal rights is not a threat.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source, and one that has the potential to revert open source back into a hobbyist- and hackers-only activity.

      This quote is particularly damning to me.

      I agree that it’s particularly damning, but for a whole different reason. Anybody who considers “a hobbyist- and hackers-only activity” a “threat” to “open source” fundamentally no longer Gets It and is themselves an enemy of Free Software!

    • liara@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Whole-heartedly agree on the quote and it stuck out to me even before coming to the comments here. Redhat might not like that people are repacking “their” software, but the spirit of GPL software is that you can charge for it but folks can also go through the trouble of building it themselves should they not want to go that route and are able to support/debug/maintain the software themselves on their own hardware.

      If they don’t think the clauses of GPL are fair, then they should probably stop distributing Linux entirely because their entire business model is founded off of profiting off the work of other open source contributions.

      Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere.

      One could argue Redhat already does this on packages they have not improved or submitted contributions for.

    • Spectacle8011@lemmy.comfysnug.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I actually agree with Red Hat’s decision to not make their sources publicly available to non-customers, and I think this is a good example to set for free software companies. However, this quote shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what free software is. It’s not a “threat to open source companies everywhere”; it’s a feature. It’s the horse you rode in on.

      The SFC has suggested this, and Alma Linux wrote about their understanding of Red Hat’s terms, but it seems that Red Hat may terminate contracts with customers who redistribute their sources. I think that’s quite nasty and very much disagree with it. Grsecurity already does this, and my opinions about that company are the same. I thought it was interesting that Red Hat didn’t address this at all in their post…

      • Laser@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is a very big difference between RH and grsec here though, and I hate that people just brush over it. And that is that true, you might not be able build the exact compatible operating system with just names and logos exchanged easily anymore. But no part of their stack is closed source or only available to subscribers, is it? Who pays the pipewire dev and in which distribution did it appear in first? Who paid the systemd developer and is currently the main company behind it? What about NetworkManager? GNOME?