this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
777 points (98.5% liked)
linuxmemes
21281 readers
189 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudo in Windows.
- No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Wasn't it like they still provide their sources, but not binaries, which (while generally being a dick move) doesn't doesn't contradict the GPL?
Or have I missed something?
Afaik the issue is that they made their code "open" source in the way many for-profit companies do: they require a subscription before you have access to the code.
If I understand the GPL correctly that doesn't violate it, since it only requires that the users have access to the source and not the general public.
The part that really makes it possibly infringe on the GPL is when you combine it with their user terms: It threatens terminating service to customers who get the code and share it. The GPL is supposed to guarantee that the rights of sharing the source code, and RedHat impedes on this freedom. I think his article breaks it down pretty well: https://opencoreventures.com/blog/2023-08-redhat-gets-around-gplv2-license-intention-with-contract-law/
Microsoft did a similar thing with GPLV2 software. That's one of the new things in the GPLv3, you camnot enforce source code restriction by thirdparty subscription agreements
No. They closed their sources to subscribers, which in itself would be fine, but the terms of service contain a clause forbidding redistribution of the sources by subscribers, at the penalty of termination of the agreement.