▲ 241 ▼ Red Hat: why I'm going all in on community-driven Linux distros. (youtu.be) submitted 3 years ago by igalmarino@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml 50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) RedHat is not going closed source. All the code is still open source. Nobody is getting sued for looking at it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Read Red Hat's new license terms and then try again, kid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) I’ve seen them. I understand them. I’m correct. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) First they came for... Nah, nevermind. You'll understand soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You think you are talking to a very different person than you actually are. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. But how would that Joe look at the source code if it not publicly available and he's not a paying customer? Checkmate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources. And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Raphael@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Read Red Hat's new license terms and then try again, kid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) I’ve seen them. I understand them. I’m correct. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) First they came for... Nah, nevermind. You'll understand soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You think you are talking to a very different person than you actually are. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. But how would that Joe look at the source code if it not publicly available and he's not a paying customer? Checkmate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources. And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child) I’ve seen them. I understand them. I’m correct. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) First they came for... Nah, nevermind. You'll understand soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You think you are talking to a very different person than you actually are. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. But how would that Joe look at the source code if it not publicly available and he's not a paying customer? Checkmate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources. And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) First they came for... Nah, nevermind. You'll understand soon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You think you are talking to a very different person than you actually are. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. But how would that Joe look at the source code if it not publicly available and he's not a paying customer? Checkmate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources. And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You think you are talking to a very different person than you actually are. Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. But how would that Joe look at the source code if it not publicly available and he's not a paying customer? Checkmate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources. And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Raphael@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago (1 child) but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code. But how would that Joe look at the source code if it not publicly available and he's not a paying customer? Checkmate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources. And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 1 point 3 years ago* If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources. And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them. permalink fedilink source parent