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

  • moon_crush@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s a fair point, and worthy of deliberation.

    However, I would continue to argue that if Redhat does not restrict parties’ rights to the source code they’ve been given, then they’ve satisfied the GPL.

    It is my understanding (at least initially) that the GPL was meant to solidify the end user’s rights to the software they have, so that they’re not left with an unfixable binary executable.

    And again, there are no rights granted by the GPL for FUTURE versions.