AlmaLinux No Longer Aims For 1:1 Compatibility With RHEL

[ppcorp]

So exactly what CentOS Stream is doing, but instead Stream actually contributes to upstream instead of being leeches feeding of RedHat and giving nothing in return.

Hopefully these leech rebuilds like Alma, Rocky, Oracle all shutdown. They have been taking advantage of the good will of open source for far too long.

You do realize that Red Hat is the bad guy here, right? Red Hat has been leeching off the community to begin with. If it wasn't for open source to begin with, there would be no Red Hat

[novideo]

Linux was never a "one man hobby", read up on the GNU Project and how what we call Linux came into being today:

I never said anything about GNU, I said Linux, which was some random hobby project: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os....m/SwRavCzVE7gJ

Hello everybody out there using minix -

I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing
since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on
things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
(same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons)
among other things).

I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work.
This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and
I'd like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions
are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them :-)

Linus ([email protected])

PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.
It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never
will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(.

But GNU too was being developed when BSD was already established, but the AT&T vs BSD lawsuit and the GPL helped GNU surpass BSD.

Stallman has been very honest about what he is, the GPL was the first copyleft license because he was a leftists, it was not about rights, it was about controlling his fellow man, much like all leftists try to do.

A truly free license would say "Here's the source code, do whatever you want with it", that's real freedom.

The GPL is about putting restrictions on what you can do with the software.

It's the opposite of free.

Ok, but in your previous posts you showed less hostility not only to MIT/BSD, but to full proprietary software than to the GPL, which doesn't give you freedom at all

I also think it's absurd for these people to release COSMIC for general availability, they should make it an exclusive for the customers, as a value added.

And lots of other posts in these forums about how much you hate foss. So can you explain how you're fine with having no freedom at all, but hate the GPL which still gives you some?

And what does FOSS have to do with left-right politics???

[sophisticles]

gpl puts absolutely NO restrictions on what you can do with the software.

It manages (very effectively) how much you can infringe on the authors absolute right to exclusive distribution of their work.

I have to conclude that you have never read the GPL or do not understand what it says:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

[mSparks]

I have to conclude that you have never read the GPL or do not understand what it says:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

I have to conclude you have no idea how copyright law works these days, and that without a licence like the gpl, anyone who is not the original author of the software has absolutely no right to do anything with it, and there are stiff penalties, including hefty fines and jail time, in most every country in the world if you do.

A licence like the gpl only gives you rights you didnt have, it cant take them away or add restrictions, because without a licence like the GPL, anyone who is not 100% the original author has no rights.

This is why Redhat are now 100% software pirates. They do not have any active licence from the original authors for their linux distribution, and the only rules that apply is standard copyright law which concludes they go straight to jail, do not pass go.
No different than a junky selling copied CDs at a flee market, or

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/us-navy-fined-software-privacy/

[novideo]

This is why Redhat are now 100% software pirates. They do not have any active licence from the original authors for their linux distribution, and the only rules that apply is standard copyright law which concludes they go straight to jail, do not pass go.

Red Hat are not violating any license by doing this.

[mSparks]

Red Hat are not violating any license by doing this.

They are violating the law, they don't have a licence to violate. Alma Linux are not going to be the only ones to notice this, the vast majority of Redhats customers legal departents will take notice as well.

doesnt completely prevent the likes of

https://www.justice.gov/usao-de/pr/chinese-citizen-pleads-guilty-100-million-internet-software-piracy-conspiracy

who was also "not violating any license"

But it is almost without doubt the end of Redhat.
Anyone using redhat today is liable to end up like

https://apnews.com/general-news-cdc556dd270049eaa67b7ada47b4d111

[edwaleni]

I did something that supported Alma Linux regardless of their RH decision, I bought one of their tshirts.

[sophisticles]

mSparks, you are a very rare type of "special", aren't you?

[mSparks]

mSparks, you are a very rare type of "special", aren't you?

If that is an attack the messenger not the message addition to the conversation, thanks for confirming my posit.

If you are just commenting on how c001 /\/\y l337 is, thanks, I know.

[sophisticles]

If that is an attack the messenger not the message addition to the conversation, thanks for confirming my posit.

If you are just commenting on how c001 /\/\y l337 is, thanks, I know.

It's a commentary of how you have no understanding of Copyright Law or Trademark Law in the U.S. yet you are making absurd and silly accusations while posting links to articles that have nothing to do with the issues at hand.

As I have pointed out in similar threads, EULAs are not enforceable under Copyright Law, they are enforceable under Contract Law. In order to have actionable claims under the Copyright Act you must register the original work within 90 days of the date of creation:

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

https://copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/

The most important step is registering the work. Registering a work is not mandatory, but for U.S. works, registration (or refusal) is necessary to enforce the exclusive rights of copyright through litigation.

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq-definitions.html

What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

Where is the public domain?
The public domain is not a place. A work of authorship is in the “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner.

By definition GPL'd software does not enjoy copyright protection because it is by its very nature in the public domain.

That's why I said you are "special", because you are either trolling, very likely, or you not only do not understand the issues but can't be bothered to educate yourself.