[Brian_K_White]

They demand that Redhat pay for what they take in the only coin that the original producer ever asked for.

Redhat are the parasites, not Centos.

If Redhat don't agree to the deal that the gpl makes, they are free not to use any gpl code.

Trying to paywall gpl software is simply theft, and it's an incredible expression of the art, when something is free, and yet you still manage to steal it.

[davisr]

> Trying to paywall gpl software is simply theft

No, it's not, and I've seen your comments elsewhere. I don't think you even know what the "free" in "free software" means.

You are COMPLETELY allowed to SELL free software. "Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can." See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

Red Hat is still distributing full corresponding source code to anyone they distribute a binary to. That is what the GPL class of licenses require, and that is what they are doing.

You are free to get the software elsewhere. You don't have to get it from Red Hat. And if Red Hat wants to charge you for it, you can take it or leave it.

[snovv_crash]

Yes, and anybody who buys RedHat product, even for a few minutes on a shared cloud provider, is entitled to the source code, and is also entitled to redistribute the source code as they see fit. Which is what Rocky is doing.

[theolivenbaum]

Which is both brilliant and surprising that RH didn't see it coming

[worthless-trash]

I'm still not convinced that 'hiding the source code' was the final end game to this.

[Brian_K_White]

I never said you can't sell free software. You have picked the wrong argument to try to make thinking I conflate the frees.

It's always been a fact that RH can't actually prevent a Centos-alike from reproducing the binaries from the same source, since RH are obligated to make the source available to anyone they hand a binary to. So you are right, they are still doing that. Congratulations on something that was never contested.

The problem is simply that they are trying, and HAVE at least issued statements asserting policies that they don't actually have the right to make. For instance they said that users can not legally redistribute the source they have access to, because it has RH trademarks in it. Well, fortunately that doesn't actually fly. The GPL isn't nullified by just including your cooyrighted or trademarked logo into the package. If anything, it just creates a derivative work and you just gave away all rights to your logo. Presumably they were'nt that stupid and carefully only do that to software they wholly wrote themselves, or things that are MIT and not GPL.