You asked for it, you got it. Here's what I think of Red Hat.Sorry this video took a bit longer than I'd like, since I'm working on finishing my basement (fu...
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.
You think you are talking to a very different person than you actually are.
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.
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.
First they came for…
Nah, nevermind. You’ll understand soon.
You think you are talking to a very different person than you actually are.
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.
But how would that Joe look at the source code if it not publicly available and he’s not a paying customer?
Checkmate.