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
    2·
    1 year ago

    Red Hat was one of the first distros and the first big player in open source. Now, open source is everywhere, but Red Hat is dead.

    with this action they may significantly reduce the number of non-RH developers willing to target their OS. why should any dev creating an OS agnostic tool jump through additional hoops just to test on a bug-for-bug compatible RHEL instance for support purposes?! and no, RedHat… CentOS Stream does not cut it for many.

    inconvenient or hostile platforms tend to wither and RH is making zero friends with their decision, so you may very well be right – it may just be a slow death spiral now.