Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AlmaLinux No Longer Aims For 1:1 Compatibility With RHEL

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by sophisticles View Post

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


    Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.
    from the link
    you posted earlier.
    Originally posted by sophisticles View Post

    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

    And interpreted that to mean there is no copyright protection, and the code is in the public domain..

    I dont need to tack any insult on to that, it speaks for itself on the quality of your deductive reasoning..

    But do keep digging you are quite hillarious.

    Last edited by mSparks; 19 July 2023, 08:13 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by mSparks View Post
      And interpreted that to mean there is no copyright protection, and the code is in the public domain..

      I dont need to tack any insult on to that, it speaks for itself on the quality of your deductive reasoning..

      But do keep digging you are quite hillarious.
      What's hilarious is that you accused Red Hat of software piracy then provided a link to an article about the Navy using non-licensed software as proof of your claim.

      As i said, very "special".

      Comment


      • Originally posted by sophisticles View Post

        What's hilarious is that you accused Red Hat of software piracy then provided a link to an article about the Navy using non-licensed software as proof of your claim.

        As i said, very "special".
        Redhat are distributing non licensed, copyrighted software.
        The GPL doesnt apply to them because they refuse to abide by its terms.
        There isnt really another name for that other than
        software piracy.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by mSparks View Post
          Redhat are distributing non licensed, copyrighted software.
          The GPL doesnt apply to them because they refuse to abide by its terms.
          There isnt really another name for that other than
          software piracy.
          Can I impose on you to think before you post?

          You claim that "The GPL doesnt apply to them because they refuse to abide by its terms" then claim that's it's "software piracy", if it doesn't apply to them then how can it be piracy?

          Have you actually read the GPL:



          Please show me which section you specifically interprets as proving that Red Hat is "pirating" software.

          Further, do you know what position GNU, the FSF that tried to enforce the GPL and the EFF have taken with regards to Red Hat's move? NONE, not a peep out of them, I can't find a single statement from anyone them offering an opinion, much less a denouncement:


          Since 1983, developing the free Unix style operating system GNU, so that computer users can have the freedom to share and improve the software they use.

          Defending your rights in the digital world


          As an funny side-note, do you know who used to fund the FSF up until 2021? Red Hat:

          Red Hat is a long-time donor and contributor to projects stewarded by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), with hundreds of contributors and millions of lines of code contributed. Considering the circumstances of Richard Stallman’s original resignation in 2019, Red Hat was appalled to learn that he had rejoined the FSF board of directors.


          'Many contributors have told us they no longer plan to participate in FSF events, and we stand behind them'


          I think Red Hat knows the GPL much better than you and is on very solid footing with their actions.

          This is what is referred to as a checkmate.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by sophisticles View Post

            Please show me which section you specifically interprets as proving that Red Hat is "pirating" software.

            Further, do you know what position GNU, the FSF that tried to enforce the GPL and the EFF have taken with regards to Red Hat's move? NONE, not a peep out of them, I can't find a single statement from anyone them offering an opinion, much less a denouncement:

            That's one of the reasons I posted you those links earlier.
            RedHat became software pirates in the last few weeks/months, before these recent chances they were "probably not".

            Now the laywers are drawing up phat cases to make phat fees.
            legal cases take years.
            the two/three copyright case examples I posted were first reported 4 or 5 years or so before the users and distributers of the pirated software were actually hit with Jail time and massive fines.​
            Oracle vs Google dates back to 2003 and was decided April 2021

            The question of justifying continued use of RH distributions is not will you actually be hit with Jail time and/or massive fines - quite possibly you wont, although you may well attract hefty legal fees at a minimum.
            But when there is absolutely zero benefit of taking that risk, the choice is really simple. Switch to Oracle Linux, drop 1:1 matching and cancel any payments to Redhat.

            Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
            I think Red Hat knows the GPL much better than you and is on very solid footing with their actions.
            I wouldn't be surprised if the guys making the decisions thought exactly the same as you did a few days ago...
            Not sure why you think that justifies you personally risking taking on huge legals fees, fines and jail time for them tho.
            Assuming you are a Redhat customer. But if you aren't why would you care one way or another?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by mSparks View Post

              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.
              What law are they violating? They are 100% in compliance with the GPL.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
                By definition GPL'd software does not enjoy copyright protection because it is by its very nature in the public domain.
                Software licensed under the GPL is copyrighted, not in the public domain at all.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by novideo View Post
                  What law are they violating? They are 100% in compliance with the GPL.
                  they are not in compliance.
                  Following the depreciation of the source repo for centos they are no longer in compliance with the stipulations regarding source distribution without any additional restrictions, which voids the gpl licence for the binaries they are distributing.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by mSparks View Post

                    they are not in compliance.
                    Following the depreciation of the source repo for centos they are no longer in compliance with the stipulations regarding source distribution without any additional restrictions, which voids the gpl licence for the binaries they are distributing.
                    The GPL only requires them to release source code to their users, not to the general public.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by novideo View Post

                      The GPL only requires them to release source code to their users, not to the general public.
                      It does however require them to release that source code without additional restrictions with prominent notices of any changes they have made. The source they distribute via redhat accounts attaches additional restrictions on source and binary redistribution, which they cannot use the GPL for.

                      That was "probably not violating the GPL" when the source and binaries were available elsewhere and all the redhat account covered was the red hat brand and artwork. Now its not available elsewhere there is no doubt they have no licence to distribute modified versions of other peoples work exclusively under redhat accounts.
                      Last edited by mSparks; 29 July 2023, 04:48 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X