I see a lot of people angry about redhat’s decisions of not wanting to redistribute source code to others but I think that should be completely within their rights. The way I see it is like I am a developer of let’s say a music player. I make my source code public because I want people to see what they’re downloading and may be get advice what I can change to make it better. I charge $10 for my app. And then someone else downloads my code, compiles it and redistributes it in his name with few changes. Then why would people want to use my app when they get same app for free? I think then, it’s completely within my right to make it closed source in that case as that’s what I make money from. Sure, my app is based on a free and open source framework but then there’s also such a thing as consent

They consented their framework to be used for development. I don’t consent my app to be redistributed. Why is it an issue?

  • NaN@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    It isn’t their right, because they are using software that explicitly requires that you provide code to those who you distribute to, and that those people in turn must be free to use and modify the code as they see fit as long as they also share it with whoever they give it to. A vast majority of the code is not owned by Red Hat, and even the code they do have is most often released under this same license.

    This is a basic feature of the copyleft license. This is why Microsoft called the GPL cancer in the past.

    What you describe as what you would do is perfectly valid for software released under such a license. If you wanted to do that, you would not use the GPL and you would not use code covered by the GPL in your product.

    • richneptune@lemmy.fmhy.mlEnglish
      0·
      1 year ago

      and that those people in turn must be free to use and modify the code as they see fit as long as they also share it with whoever they give it to.

      And this is where it falls apart for redhat. They’re allowing their clients to download and use the source, but then threatening them that if the source RPMs make it out into the wild then they are at liberty to cancel their agreements terminating their access to RHEL altogether.

      • NaN@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        It may be allowed by the GPL, if so I am fairly sure that is an unanticipated bug and not a feature. It is a shockingly short sighted attack on free software, specifically freedom 2 and somewhat freedom 3.