Skip Navigation

Open source developers - have the recent moves by RedHat changed your opinion of using non-GPL licenses?

The new license terms for RHEL are structured to stop subscribers from exercising their rights under the GPL. For now they are still providing source code albeit in a less convenient form, but technically they only need to do this for GPL licenses packages and they could remove code for BSD /MIT / Apache licensed packages.

Do these developments make you more.inclined to distribute your software under a copyleft license or are you happy with something more open?

11

You're viewing a single thread.

11 comments
  • The GPL requires you to distribute the GPL source code along side artefacts generated from it.

    Red Hat used to share everything with everyone, they never needed to do that. To meet the requirements they need to share the code sources with licensed customers. This is what they have switched to doing.

    This is my problem with the GPL, it feels like a cult of personality built around Stallman. With people assuming its somehow a magical license.

    Businesses largely treat GPL as libraries they don't modify (or legal gets frowny face) so they don't have to share their code.

    The "less free" licenses are generally ok to use and modify (the WTFPL caused fun with legal in one job). If you modify an open source project its normally easy to build a business case/convince a client to upstream the changes.

    All the Red Hat changes demonstrate is another step towards an Oracle/Microsoft licensing model. Which is a good reason to not use RHEL or Fedora.

11 comments