@jwildeboer @SUSE @ubuntu @opensuse @SolarisDiaspora I think "Just clone #RHEL!" is kinda bad and unsustainable as a business.
Killing #CentOS and barring #OracleLinux was more of "glock-leg" / "shooting themselves in the foot" of #RedHat and IMHO it should get RHEL to decline in adoption similar to #grsecurity when they #paywalled access to their #SourceCode.

I think it's a bad move even tho no #GPL version demands said sourcecode to be publicly accessible to everyone.
https://mstdn.social/@kkarhan/110866795794127139

Can we put some of that forking-RHEL money towards suing Red Hat please?

#RedHat #GPL

@rodneylives My first suggestion would be: Don't. Even new #C64 game releases are sold as e.g. disk (D64) or cart (CRT) image downloads. People interested in this kind of stuff nowadays can probably be expected to just install an emulator on their machine 😉

If you still want to do that, I don't know any existing solution, but it's certainly possible and reminds me a bit of what #Cloanto is doing with their #c64forever product. But be careful, VICE is #GPL licensed, so for derived work, sure you can sell it, but you're obliged to make your modified source available publicly and free of cost.

@Tusky Is there a #GPL compatible licensed version of Atkinson Hyperlegible that would allow it to be distributed with Tusky under its current GPLv2 license? All I know of is their own bespoke/proprietary font license.

@fuchsiii @thelinuxcast @Vivaldi yeah, #glibc makes long-term support outside of #LTS distros like #RHEL, #SLES / #SLED, #OracleLinux and #Ubuntu LTS basically impossible unless one is a hardcore #Stallmanist and hates everything not #GPL-licensed and would rather want to see #Users suffer than accept that #CCSS is as valid to exist as #FLOSS...

The most important freedoms that #Copyleft protects are those freedoms enjoyed by the *end user*.

💯 Agree!

#GPL #FOSSY #FOSSY2023 #SoftwareFreedom

@krisfreedain I mean... If you're gonna opine on a panel about disharmonies between the #GPL and other agreements, I think it's a fair question. :-)

Imagine if United Linux had started as a Red Hat Linux derivative from Day 1... 🤔

#RedHat #SUSE #RHEL #CentOS #GPL #FOSS #OSS #SoftwareFreedom
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Linux

There are many examples of non-Free (non-Open Source) licenses that try to compel recipients of programs to make the source code available "publicly". For example, the Sybase Open Watcom Public License version 1.0.

This has always been seen as an undue burden on the recipient of copies of a program, and potentially infringement of their freedoms.

#FreeSoftware #OpenSource #SoftwareFreedom #FOSS #OSS #GPL
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Watcom-1.0

Requiring publishing source code publicly fails the "desert island test" (see the FAQ below) today, just as it did decades ago.

Requiring corresponding source code be given to the public, rather than requiring it be given to those whom you give copies of the program, is bad Free Software policy.

#FreeSoftware #OpenSource #SoftwareFreedom #FOSS #OSS #GPL

https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html

"The #GPL requires that changes be shared as source code," Bruce Perens said. "Were it written today, it would require that they be shared publicly online."

No, I don't think that it would, Bruce.

#FreeSoftware #OpenSource #SoftwareFreedom
https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/10/oracle_ibm_rhel_code/

And source code access, with all the permissions needed for Software Freedom, are core to that social framing.
#FreeSoftware #OpenSource #FOSS #OSS #GPL #Linux #SoftwareFreedom
https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech2.html

From my perspective, I would rather companies *not* adopt a GPL-family license for their commercial products if they don't understand its purpose, and are willing to stand behind it in a social benefit framing.

#FreeSoftware #OpenSource #FOSS #OSS #GPL #Linux #SoftwareFreedom

Perhaps this will change if courts agree that there are third-party beneficiaries—the software-using public—that are harmed when the GPL is misused, abused, and outright violated.

This is the question raised in @conservancy v. Vizio.

#FreeSoftware #OpenSource #FOSS #OSS #GPL #SoftwareFreedom
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

I think one cannot expect companies that adopted the GPL in self-interest to enforce the GPL in the software-using public's interest, especially if they have a business model based on keeping some versions of the same software proprietary.
#FreeSoftware #OpenSource #FOSS #OSS #GPL #Linux #SoftwareFreedom

Some companies have used the GPL as a "community license" (like "freeware" or "shareware") not a "software freedom license".

The used the GPL for its goodwill and brand power from its association with #Linux and #GNU
#FreeSoftware #OpenSource #FOSS #OSS #GPL #SoftwareFreedom

It's understandable that companies don't want others to be able to enforce GPL obligations on software that is core to their business.

After all, we've seen how some have used GPL enforcement for their own personal enrichment.

#FreeSoftware #OpenSource #FOSS #OSS #GPL #Linux #SoftwareFreedom

https://lwn.net/Articles/882397/

Unfortunately, there are cases where companies have adopted the GPL for their corporate interests, rather than thinking first about protecting rights for software users.

They use contributor agreements (CLAs and ©AAs) that prevent others from having standing to enforce the GPL.

#FreeSoftware #OpenSource #FOSS #OSS #GPL #Linux #SoftwareFreedom

Today, software users have little recourse in cases where intermediaries fail to comply with GPL license requirements unless someone that holds the copyright is willing to enforce the license.

#FreeSoftware #OpenSource #FOSS #OSS #GPL #Linux #SoftwareFreedom

@donelias Pura curiosidad… alguna razón por escoger #gpl y no sé, pongamos #bsd, #mit o #apache? ¡No juzgo! 😊