An exceptionally well explained rant that I find myself in total agreement with.

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

    This argument that open source somehow needs to exploit users and blatantly skirt the intent of the GPL because profit must be taken from it is absurd.

    Why is it assumed that they weren’t perfectly sustainable before and why is it the end users responsibility to bear the burden of making their business model viable if they weren’t? Being unprofitable doesn’t excuse you from following the terms of your software license.

    • poVoq@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, RHEL “exploits” large companies and the public sector that require a lot of compliance certificates and long term service guarantees for the software they procure. If Red Hat doesn’t collect this money, it goes into the pockets of people with much lower upstream contributions than Red Hat.

      The regular user doesn’t need RHEL. Fedora or any other non-enterprise Linux distribution is perfectily fine and they will directly benefit from the contribution that Red Hat finances through their enterprise sales.

    • UrbenLegend@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except they’re aren’t violating the GPL at all. Their source code is still available to subscribers (and it isn’t behind a paywall because you can get a free license) and available to the public via CentOS Stream. Their code also goes into upstream projects as well.

      The GPL exists so that companies can’t just take the code and contribute nothing back. But that isn’t what Redhat is doing here so I find your accusations that Redhat is exploiting users to be very hyperbolic.

      • underisk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Whether or not they’re violating the letter of the GPL is entirely separate from whether they’re violating its intent. The former is debatable but the latter is absolutely happening here.

        • UrbenLegend@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          What do you think the intent of the GPL is though? Genuinely curious, this isn’t meant as a retort or anything.

          • underisk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            … the freedom to study, change, and redistribute the software you use.

            They are specifically and explicitly trying to limit your freedom with regards to redistribution by making it a violation of their EULA to do so.

            • UrbenLegend@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              But the code is also available in CentOS Stream, which is basically the “git master” of RHEL, and that you can freely redistribute.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Red Hat weren’t ever unprofitable under the old model. This is just the classic killing of the goose that lays the golden eggs. They’ll get a short term boost in profit until customers start moving to competitors.