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?

  • qprimedEnglish
    5·
    1 year ago

    this is a great analogy - and I am now hungry.

    my only suggestion would be that the donut is the binary and the recipe is the source code (which is GPL’d and must come with the donut).

    the person getting the donut is free to eat the donut and distribute the recipe (long live the GPL!), but the baker says, if you distribute the recipe, I wont sell you any more donuts (as is their right) and therefore you will not get updated recipes either.

    totally garbage move by redhat, but arguably allowed by the GPL. this eventuality is one of many reasons why I chose the debian_waytm decades ago when I seriously started with FLOSS.

    • cujo@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      Agreed, that’s a better way to put it. I thought about using the recipe as part of the analogy, but couldn’t figure out the right way to word it. Thanks for that!

      • qprimedEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        you gave the world v1.0; the world gave you v1.1 – and we all share for the next iteration

        FLOSS works! :)

    • NaN@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      I wouldn’t be surprised if this results in a new version of the GPL (much like TiVo inspired in the past) that makes the redistribution rights even more explicit. I think the “allowed” is only in the vaguest of terms and likely more of an oversight based on the software distribution model being used at the time and some crafty lawyers at Red Hat. It absolutely violates the spirit of the GPL that anybody who receives the binary can also get the code to use and modify however they want as long as they also share changes with people who they distribute to.