You’re right - for the time being. But what I’m not willing to do, is give them the benefit of the doubt. They’re just waiting for all this backlash to blow over. Then they will start extending it to other components and eventually to the net, under some other name.
But what about this business of cancelling subscriptions? Isn’t that a restriction in violation of the GPL? Not in my view.
You are just repeating the exact narrow definition that Redhat/IBM’s lawyer leeches found to justify what they did. Yes it’s legal - but by no means in the spirit of GPL or any FSF or OSI approved license.
Starting with the FSF definition, ANY software from OUTSIDE that RH builds on (this includes the kernel and numerous other parts) comes to them with 4 assured freedoms. One of them is the freedom to distribute the software or the modified forms of it. To put it in short, what RH says is - “You’re still free to exercise the freedom - but we will stop doing business with you if you do”. While this is not against the letter of the license, this is most certainly AGAINST the INTENT of the license.
One might ask, if that’s the intent of the license, why does the license allow such a loophole? To put it simply, the creators of the license created it based on certainguidelines. But they couldn’t foresee all the ways in which the license would be twisted, violating its intent. This happens from time to time - causing the licenses to undergo revisions. For example, GPLv3 was created due to what FSF calls Tivoization - a practice that violates the intent without violating the license. Hell, this is against even OSI’s intent.
However, just because there are loop holes in the license to violate its intent, doesn’t mean that it’s ethical or moral to take advantage of it. When some company does so, it’s nothing short of parasitism. In this case, RH managed to suppress GPL after profiteering for decades from it.
In my view, the “community” reaction was terrible.
Clearly, your view is heavily colored. Remember that the community’s reaction was only a response to what RH did. You clearly are not seeing the possibility that what RH did is way way worse and extremely damaging towards the community and FOSS principles.
If you give away the results of Red Hat’s hard work to productize CentOS Stream into RHEL,
This is a very myopic, one-sided and biased take. A lot of people who are complaining are contributors to the work RH uses. This isn’t just about some bit of work. This is about trust that forms the foundations of the FOSS movement. People will be hesitant to contribute to any project that RH may take and profit like this. RH is using their code in a way that they were not expecting. What RH did is to fundamentally exploit that trust and then betray it.
Nothing has been taken from you except access to FUTURE Red Hat product ( other than totally for free via CentOS Stream of course ).
The same narrow definitions to justify the malicious intent. Remember that distributing the recipe for ‘FUTURE Red Hat product’ wouldn’t be wrong in any way if RH hadn’t created the new clause - that they will stop supplying if you did. They had to invent a way to override the intent of FOSS.
So, Red Hat is going quite above and beyond the licensing by providing their subscribers code to the entire distribution. Yes, beyond.
They don’t have a business if they didn’t distribute the source code. There are numerous other offerings that give you the same services without the source code. They are doing nothing beyond what it takes for them to make money. So, their moral superiority arguments are based on false premises.
I’m honestly very tired of people shilling the false arguments of corporates that exploit regular folks to make money. The stories of how RH damaged the entire Linux ecosystem for supporting their business is too long for me to even get into. For now, I will just say that RH’s entire business model has been to make the Linux ecosystem too complicated for anyone else to reasonably manage or modify. So, please stop giving this greedy corporation more credit than what it’s worth and stop demonizing the people who complained when their reasonable expectations were violated.
It’s likely that GenZ is just fatigued and apathetic to climate change. They might have just resigned to their fate, knowing the world governments and greedy corporate vermin won’t let anything meaningful happen in their lifetime.
Least important it may be. But it is the most significant. This scheme follows the conventional scheme we follow while writing numbers - the most significant digit to the left and significance reducing as we move right.
The advantage of YYYY-MM-DD becomes when you add time to it in ISO-8601 or RFC 3339 format: YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss. All the digits are uniformly decreasing in significance from left to right.
This becomes even more apparent if you are trying to sort by time - say, a stack of files, or datetime in a computer. Try doing this with any other scheme.
In what world would Microsoft allow the Linux name to appear before Windows? If MS were a person, they would be diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Back when Microsoft started showing interest in and contributing to Linux, I knew that they were up to something no good like this. But honestly, anyone who thinks that WSL running inside a very abusive Windows environment is an alternative to true Linux/BSD experience, is frankly clueless. They deserve everything MS subjects them to.
It has become fashionable for some to take a defeatist condescending stance like this when it comes to issues that affect everyone. If you think it makes you look smart, it doesn’t. These are pressing issues and people have to take action. If you don’t want to, go ahead and disappear. But don’t talk down to those who are and those who are calling for it.