I see a lot of people angry about redhat’s decisions of not wanting to redistribute source code to others but I think that should be completely within their rights. The way I see it is like I am a developer of let’s say a music player. I make my source code public because I want people to see what they’re downloading and may be get advice what I can change to make it better. I charge $10 for my app. And then someone else downloads my code, compiles it and redistributes it in his name with few changes. Then why would people want to use my app when they get same app for free? I think then, it’s completely within my right to make it closed source in that case as that’s what I make money from. Sure, my app is based on a free and open source framework but then there’s also such a thing as consent

They consented their framework to be used for development. I don’t consent my app to be redistributed. Why is it an issue?

  • Lvxferre@lemmy.mlEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Let’s say that your app is built upon open source software that was not coded by you, but by other people. Like: 10% of the code of your app was coded by you, 90% by other people (let’s call them generically “third parties”). And that those third parties released their code as open source, under the following condition: “you can only use our code in your software if your software is also open source”.

    And let’s also say that you’ve been living mostly not from selling your app, but from support. But that is never enough, isn’t it? You decide to charge for the app, and to get rid of the competition.

    What would you do?

    1. What about not using the third party code? Nope - simply not feasible. Your app is built upon it.
    2. Keep living from support. Nope - you’re too greedy for that.
    3. Outright violate the open source license required by the third party devs. Nope - you’ll get heavily fined.
    4. Find some loophole so you can “technically” comply with the license of the third party devs, but only in letter, not in spirit.

    Red Hat picked #4. Or potentially #3 because “we’ll stop doing businesses with you if you do what the license explicitly allows you to do” might be potentially also considered a violation of the letter of the license, not just the spirit.