Fedora may receive backing from RH, but it’s still community-ran. Similar to how Linux itself is backed by the likes of Google/Meta/Huawei/etc but is isn’t ran by them.
And they didn’t close-source RHEL. I don’t like the license changes they made either, but calling it closed source is inaccurate.
If you’re a customer of theirs, you can see the source code. The license customers agree to is certainly a restriction, but it’s not all of a sudden closed/proprietary software.
And finally, despite that recent move, RH remains probably the biggest contributor to desktop Linux. If you want to avoid their work… good luck. It’s literally everywhere.
I’m saying their source code is available to its users for auditing, changing, redistributing without risk of being sued for intellectual property violations.
That’s fine as far as the GPL goes. It doesn’t have to be public to non-users.
You’re basically saying that something isn’t wet, it just has water on it.
I’m saying their source code is available to its users for auditing, changing, redistributing without risk of being sued for intellectual property violations.
We’re saying the same thing, you just refuse to attach “closed source” to its definition. So answer me this: can anyone freely use it? Can only licensees use it? If the answers are no and yes respectively, that’s closed source.
I’m saying nothing of the sort.
You absolutely are. You’re using the word’s definition (source code available only to licensees), but won’t say the actual word (closed source).
No, we aren’t saying the same thing, because you’re talking nonsense and I am not.
Closed source means computer programs whose source code is not published except to licensees
Nowhere in your link does it actually say that. And amusingly, by that definition, software where the source code isn’t provided to licensees isn’t closed source. What? So software where the code is a total black box that nobody other than the programmer knows isn’t closed source in your mind?
But here’s something it does say:
Proprietary software is software that grants its creator, publisher, or other rightsholder or rightsholder partner a legal monopoly by modern copyright and intellectual property law to exclude the recipient from freely sharing the software or modifying it
Let’s go through the two listed criteria, shall we?
Legal monopoly to exclude the user from sharing the software: RHEL doesn’t have this. They can’t sue anybody for sharing the code.
Legal monopoly to exclude the user from modifying the code: RHEL doesn’t have this. RHEL users are free to modify the code as they wish.
Saying “if you clone and republish RHEL, taking advantage of our work to undercut us with minimal effort, we reserve the right to not have you as a continued customer” is perhaps against the spirit of many open source licences, on that I agree, but it’s a far cry from being closed source. RHEL isn’t like MacOS or Windows.
It’s hard for me to take you seriously when it does and I literally copy/pasted from the link. Even if you don’t read the whole page, you can’t even do a CTRL+F correctly.
It literally doesn’t. Please stop lying. Everybody can see you lying. It just makes you look like even more of an idiot. You don’t want to look like even more of a idiot, do you?
I’ve used your own source to dismiss your argument.
But here’s another, just to drive the point home even more:
It literally doesn’t. Please stop lying. Everybody can see you lying.
We’re done here, kiddie.
Calling me a liar (when it’s easily provable I’m not, I even included a screenshot for you) devolving to insults, calling me a kiddie and an idiot? If you can’t even formulate an argument without insults and you fail twice to read a link, yep, we’re done. Enjoy your day/night.
deleted by creator
Fedora may receive backing from RH, but it’s still community-ran. Similar to how Linux itself is backed by the likes of Google/Meta/Huawei/etc but is isn’t ran by them.
And they didn’t close-source RHEL. I don’t like the license changes they made either, but calling it closed source is inaccurate.
If you’re a customer of theirs, you can see the source code. The license customers agree to is certainly a restriction, but it’s not all of a sudden closed/proprietary software.
And finally, despite that recent move, RH remains probably the biggest contributor to desktop Linux. If you want to avoid their work… good luck. It’s literally everywhere.
Are you saying that their source code is not published except to licensees?
You’re basically saying that something isn’t wet, it just has water on it.
I’m saying their source code is available to its users for auditing, changing, redistributing without risk of being sued for intellectual property violations.
That’s fine as far as the GPL goes. It doesn’t have to be public to non-users.
I’m saying nothing of the sort.
Closed source means computer programs whose source code is not published except to licensees.
We’re saying the same thing, you just refuse to attach “closed source” to its definition. So answer me this: can anyone freely use it? Can only licensees use it? If the answers are no and yes respectively, that’s closed source.
You absolutely are. You’re using the word’s definition (source code available only to licensees), but won’t say the actual word (closed source).
No, we aren’t saying the same thing, because you’re talking nonsense and I am not.
Nowhere in your link does it actually say that. And amusingly, by that definition, software where the source code isn’t provided to licensees isn’t closed source. What? So software where the code is a total black box that nobody other than the programmer knows isn’t closed source in your mind?
But here’s something it does say:
Let’s go through the two listed criteria, shall we?
Legal monopoly to exclude the user from sharing the software: RHEL doesn’t have this. They can’t sue anybody for sharing the code.
Legal monopoly to exclude the user from modifying the code: RHEL doesn’t have this. RHEL users are free to modify the code as they wish.
Saying “if you clone and republish RHEL, taking advantage of our work to undercut us with minimal effort, we reserve the right to not have you as a continued customer” is perhaps against the spirit of many open source licences, on that I agree, but it’s a far cry from being closed source. RHEL isn’t like MacOS or Windows.
It’s hard for me to take you seriously when it does and I literally copy/pasted from the link. Even if you don’t read the whole page, you can’t even do a CTRL+F correctly.
It literally doesn’t. Please stop lying. Everybody can see you lying. It just makes you look like even more of an idiot. You don’t want to look like even more of a idiot, do you?
I’ve used your own source to dismiss your argument.
But here’s another, just to drive the point home even more:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux
Lol
Lmao
We’re done here, kiddie.
Calling me a liar (when it’s easily provable I’m not, I even included a screenshot for you) devolving to insults, calling me a kiddie and an idiot? If you can’t even formulate an argument without insults and you fail twice to read a link, yep, we’re done. Enjoy your day/night.
TIL GPL is a proprietary licence