|
|
|
|
|
by smoldesu
1084 days ago
|
|
This is what people wanted. Red Hat wants to be paid for their modifications to GPL code, and they've gotten their wish. They can't override the conditions of the license, but they knew that when they started making contributions. There's no world in which Red Hat has their hands tied by a license they opt-in to using. Red Hat can sell their own OS and block redistribution if they want, just not with GPL code. You can only characterize it as "a flaw in the FOSS model" if you consider these patches to be Red Hat's property. They can sell it for as much as they want, just never "own" it. > Walled gardens are at least as old as video game consoles Walled gardens have existed much longer than that. But, so to speak, shooting someone at the country club doesn't give you the right to deny state police an investigation. |
|