- cross-posted to:
- yt_tech@lemmy.link
- diducthis@lemmy.piperservers.net
- bofh@group.lt
- cross-posted to:
- yt_tech@lemmy.link
- diducthis@lemmy.piperservers.net
- bofh@group.lt
An exceptionally well explained rant that I find myself in total agreement with.
An exceptionally well explained rant that I find myself in total agreement with.
The problem is that the GPL states:
Red Hat are arguing that they are free to punish customers from exercising their rights under the GPL, and that punishment does not constitute a “restriction”, even though its done specifically to discourage people from exercising those rights. Whether Red Hat have found a loophole is something for the courts to decide, but it’s clearly against the intention and spirit of the GPL.
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.