[lproven]

It's analysis. It's my job.

The position that "they can't do this, it's GPL!" is risible. It's stupid: it means those saying it have not thought about what a corporation worth tens of $billions has to do before such a move.

Entitlement makes people stupid, though. Ask any person from a minority.

However...

> The old management got the culture and did not attack the community. The present management is the opposite, and I think it's dumb.

Yeah, can't really argue with that. ;-)

[effie]

> It's analysis.

Analysis should involve also sources and argumentation. You stated a contentious belief as an obvious fact without source and argumentation. That's more like a commentary.

> The position that "they can't do this, it's GPL!" is risible. It's stupid: it means those saying it have not thought about what a corporation worth tens of $billions has to do before such a move.

That's your analysis?

No it's not risible.

Commentators do not usually claim this is their official legal position. It's an understandable emotional reaction to IBM/RedHat turning their back on decades of established mutual understanding with the community, which was that clones are fine.

What's risible (or sad) is that some people, on both sides, including you, think their position is obviously correct and the other one is obviously wrong. None of the legal questions here are obvious.

From a legal standpoint, the contract vs GPL issue is contentious, and if you do not see why, then you probably did not came across enough of various sources on the matter. There is a documented case in the past where Red Hat violated GPL as they threatened to revoke support to a customer using the GPL code if they won't pay royalties; the customer said go pound sand, and Red Hat ultimately backed down. The spook of GPL, or "no further restrictions" in particular, is strong, and Red Hat/IBM are not likely to want to test it in court.

[lproven]

> Analysis should involve also sources and argumentation.

It did.

> You stated a contentious belief as an obvious fact

Hang on: where?

> without source and argumentation.

I disagree.

> That's more like a commentary.

Well, if you feel that a different name is more apt, I have no problem with that.

> That's your analysis?

Are you paying for this? No? Then no, it's not. It's a passing comment.

> No it's not risible.

I would not have said so if I didn't think it. That a corporation which over 20Y has gone from being worth very little to being worth tens of billions of dollars solely from selling contracts should not consider contract law or license terms before making such an important decision?

To conclude that and maintain it seriously is laughable.

Amusingly, RH itself has contacted me officially, as well as several members of staff unofficially, and ex members of staff privately, to thank me for a cogent analysis and being fair.

OTOH, some developer types, both from inside and outside the company, are Very Angry with me on Twitter.

So it goes.

> you probably did not came across enough of various sources on the matter.

It's entirely possible.

OTOH one of my articles is a cited source here: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis...

So... shrug

[effie]

> Hang on: where?

In your The Register article. It's good that here on HN you have clarified that this is Red Hat's position and your position. But that's the mistake - you should have stated this clearly in the article. Making an honest mistake is fine, pretending you don't see it at all is the reason for length of this conversation.

> That a corporation which over 20Y has gone from being worth very little to being worth tens of billions of dollars solely from selling contracts should not consider contract law or license terms before making such an important decision?

> To conclude that and maintain it seriously is laughable.

> Amusingly, RH itself has contacted me officially, as well as several members of staff unofficially, and ex members of staff privately, to thank me for a cogent analysis and being fair.

Nice deflection and PR work there. From outside, you seem to fit better in Red Hat's PR department than in a journal that prouds itself in "biting the hand that feeds IT".

[lproven]

No, I absolutely reject all of this.

Some things I have learned from now very nearly 30 years of writing for public consumption are:

* Most people cannot skim read

* They don't know that they can't

* As a result of the above, what people get out of articles is semi-random. Their eyes snag on key words and phrases or something and they come back and complain about stuff that was not there or which they totally misunderstood.

* That's why there are so many writing tools about "Fogg indices" and "reading levels" and so on; most people can't read but don't realise.

* That is also why video channels are now so huge.

I am personally not terribly interested in Red Hat's position. I approached the company -- I approached all the companies concerned for comment. I got no responses from most of them, and bland PR banalities when I got anything.

OFF THE RECORD company representatives are often happy to provide interesting details but on the record they can't, or they will get sued.

Everyone is terrified of getting sued. This is FACT #1 to remember: everyone is scared of lawyers getting involved.

So nobody will do anything that will get them sued.

RH would not have done this if it thought it would get sued, but it dare not SAY "we wouldn't do this in case we get sued" -- in case it gets sued.

Therefore there is nothing but bland corporate BS from all involved.

It is very naïve and short sighted not to allow for this.

> Nice deflection and PR work there.

And this is the proof that you don't understand me, or my position, or any of this at all.

I do not use any RH product. I do not recommend them or advocate them.

But more to the point:

Red Hat fired me.

I have no love for RH whatsoever. I have often been accused of anti-RH bias.

But you don't understand what I am really saying.

This move of the company's will make it more money short term, but long term, when I say, in print, REPEATEDLY, "this is good for the Linux world" and "good for other distros" that is because it will lose RH users and lose RH customers and lose RH money.

That will be good news for SUSE, for whom I worked longer than any other job I've ever had and a company whose products I actually like. It will be good for Debian and Canonical and Ubuntu, none of whom I have ever worked for.

> From outside, you seem to fit better in Red Hat's PR department

I should post the loud anguished criticism I have had from RH staffers about this coverage, but that would be a grotesque violation of confidentiality and of professional ethics. Many of them understand as little and as poorly as you do.

Go read my Twitter threads, and see the pages of attacks on me for my anti-RH bias.

Start here:

https://twitter.com/GordonMessmer/status/1681090089152290816

It is not a crime to not be very good at understanding long written articles. But if you don't, you should know that you don't.