• Muddybulldog@mylemmy.win
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve seen them. I understand them. I’m correct.

      Not making their sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code.

        • Muddybulldog@mylemmy.win
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You think you are talking to a very different person than you actually are.

          Not making their package sources generally available for download is NOT the same as closed source. The only ones subject to their new licensing agreements are their paying customers. They are very much pushing against the spirit of FOSS licenses but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code.

          • Raphael@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            but there is no potential for some Joe on the street to get sued for looking at their source code.

            But how would that Joe look at the source code if it not publicly available and he’s not a paying customer?

            Checkmate.

            • Muddybulldog@mylemmy.win
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If Joe hasn’t been provided the binaries from RedHat they’re under no obligation to provide the sources.

              And the true sources can easily be obtained from the upstream, same place every other distro provider get’s them.