I disagree. Things you say have consequences. The things you say actively reflect on your employer and future employers. You can try to deny it all you want but that’s the fact. I for one look poorly on the FSF for reinstating Stallman and I don’t think the FSF is a body of decision-makers that are capable of making the right choice. That’s kind of a major part of the FSF.
What controllers are you using that don’t work on Windows? One of the most commonly used PC controllers are Xbox controllers and they work amazingly on Windows. On Linux they suck and have constant issues. For the cheapest options something like Logitech works better on Windows and typically just use the same API as the Xbox controllers.
Yup, I think the core design philosophy is the fault and thus the janky always behind the times Linux os will never be a leader. It’s because there is no driving force to make something coherent, well polished, and unique in a productive way. When your design philosophy is everyone design and implement by committee nothing will feel like it has a goal.
Yeah that’s where windows shines is devices. Windows supports more random devices than Linux. Linux might have the most drivers for devices but they are half baked most of the time and with windows you know that’s the supported and tested platform for it. Linux needs serious buy in from vendors before it becomes big and the only way to get that is a large audience. It’s a catch 22 that Linux folks won’t admit it exists.
Absolutely, you are the company paying for all the work of the FOSS app, having to ensure it meets FCC regulations for banking. It’s a huge mess. Costs millions to do. Pull requests can’t just be taken they must be studied by several teams and a lot of the time it’d be easier and better if that code came internally so you’d be able to directly communicate with the author. That said FINOS exists, https://www.finos.org/ They are more about adopting the usage of open source libraries rather than writing their own though.
Overall you’d get no to little benefit and lose a competitive edge while causing more technical headaches following standards to open source your code.
Overly complex to the end user. Most end users don’t care how much code or internal complexity there is. AI generation is very complex but the interface is just regular English or whatever human language.
These semantic misunderstandings are all over the Linux community and it’s reflective in the OS layout.
Oh yeah, 👍 This is the year for sure! Mhmm. No way all these minor fixes to an overly complex OS aren’t the solution THIS time. /s
ugh, if I hope I never hear the phrase “Year of the Linux Desktop” again
deleted by creator
Peglin was incredibly fun on the Steam Deck.
At this point, we’ve been back and forth through this, and every time I’ve brought up the points where the RHEL source is actively available under the CentOS stream and you dodge the whole thing. You seem to be up in arms about it so go contact SFLC/FSF or some lawyer who will take the case. Let me know what it turns up. Personally, I wouldn’t be optimistic you had a case. Good luck.
It’s not about the trademarks and you know it. Nobody here begrudges RedHat for protecting their trademarks. That’s a red herring.
I’m not a lawyer or a judge but as far as I can tell your confusion comes from the trademark protection of Redhat and the GPL. There are GPLed games on Steam which requires an account which also states in the subscriber agreement that you can’t redistribute. https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement
you may not, in whole or in part, copy, photocopy, reproduce, publish, distribute, translate, reverse engineer, derive source code from, modify, disassemble, decompile, create derivative works based on, or remove any proprietary notices or labels from the Content and Services or any software accessed via Steam without the prior consent, in writing, of Valve.
Yet they host games like https://store.steampowered.com/app/370070/Wyrmsun/ which is GPLed and uses a GPLed game engine https://github.com/Wargus/stratagus.
So over here, Steam is doing what you’ve said Redhat is doing but actually is not. In fact, Steam is a far worse offender than Redhat in this because Redhat is just saying you can’t redistribute their Trademarked copies of the software. You can however redistribute copies without those trademarks but that it might prevent them from running. Like if you wrote a GPL’ed program that required an image file with a specific checksum to exist but then that tied to a trademarked image. You’d essentially be prevented from redistributing the GPLed binaries but you could modify the check and remove it.
So if you want someone to go after, go after Steam for this. Redhat is within the legal loopholes. Steam is blatantly breaking them.
Every contributor outside of RedHat who chose the GPL to protect their copyrights and intellectual property, do their copyrights matter here?
Absolutely, the GPL isn’t being violated here as proven many times over.
Are you willing to affirm that their intellectual property rights matter just as much as RedHat’s?
Sure, I affirm that everyone’s IP rights including Redhat’s matter equally. The fact is that they aren’t being broken. You’ve misunderstood the contract details if you think they are, they put out a press release to stop the confusion but you seem to just keep wanting to push it forward. So go get lawyers and try them in court. See if it goes anywhere. Go after steam first.
Yes, redistributing the subscription services isn’t the same as redistributing the software. The software is RHEL which is GPL’ed and outlined here: https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Red_Hat_GPLv2-Based_EULA_20191118.pdf
Subject to the following terms, Red Hat, Inc. (“Red Hat”) grants to you a perpetual, worldwide license to the Programs (each of which may include multiple software components) pursuant to the GNU General Public License v.2 (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old- licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html). With the exception of certain image files identified in Section 2 below, each software component is governed by a license located in the software component’s source code that permits you to run, copy, modify, and redistribute (subject to certain obligations in some cases) the software component.
Which for the “certain obligations”
This EULA does not permit you to distribute the Programs using Red Hat’s trademarks, regardless of whether the Programs have been modified.
Which is perfectly acceptable in the GPL and many video games does this where the content is under a different copyright or trademark and the code is GPL’ed.
The issue here is they are forbidding other people from redistributing the sources they got from Red Hat
Everything I read about their EULA, they aren’t.
As long as they tag it for release it such there isn’t a problem. Many gpl software repos already work like that. Even if they don’t tag it, you have the repo and commit history. Technically you have a way of getting the source.
I don’t see that as the case but even if true, I don’t see the impact that would have.
What are the terms of that nondisclosure agreement I would sign were i to agree to and pay for a RHEL subscription
https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Enterprise_Agreement_Webversion_NA_English_20211109.pdf
You’ve already pointed to this document. That’s the NDA inside of that agreement. I don’t see the confusion you are having here. This is an enterprise-level service agreement. This license does not prevent you from distributing RHEL source code without Redhat trademarked images.
And why does that contract jnclude on-site auditing of one’s facilities for ostensibly open source software to verify license compliance, for up a year after termination of the subscription?
It’s not a license for the software, it’s a license for the service. At the end of 8.2, it explicitly states that information covered under open source is not confidential information. The license for the software is located at https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Red_Hat_GPLv2-Based_EULA_20191118.pdf which is the EULA, not a service agreement like the above. Please direct your attention to Section 1. It explicitly allows you to follow the GPL v2.
This is not silly. The EULA you pointed to does not relate to RHEL subscription licensing and contractual obligations. So the question of constraining subscribers from releasing source obtained from RHEL portals is not answered by the document you cited.
The two do not relate legally. The service level agreement is for the service. The EULA is for the software. This is perfectly fine to do from a legal standpoint.
Note that you can download and redistribute RHEL at no cost https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/download
Creating an account is free and the terms are here: https://www.redhat.com/wapps/tnc/viewterms/72ce03fd-1564-41f3-9707-a09747625585 (not sure if this link changes.)
Overall, redhat has a lot of legal documents here, all are provided on their site without an account. When you go to register, they provide links and check boxes to what you are agreeing to. I do not see this as a problem. If you do, then more power to you. See if you can get a lawyer to fight whatever battle you think is here.
No, EFF also complains one doesn’t get the shrinkwrap agreement until after the product is bought. Often with little to no means to refuse and return for a refund. So it’s coercive.
Again, we aren’t talking about the time of purchase, we are talking about the time of agreement. The shrinkwrap agreement is still shown before it takes effect or there is a way to access it. Typically during the installation process.
This is relevant to the RedHat issue here because my reading of the public facing RHEL US agreement at that link I posted is that there’s a nondisclosure agreement you must agree to in order to purchase a subscription for support, but what specifically you’re agreeing to not disclose will be made clear only after signing a contract and paying the fee.
But the agreement is still available to you before you agree to it. I’ve entered into a few business agreements like this. You sign an NDA then you get the agreement to sign or reject but you can’t tell people about it or that you were even in talks due to the NDA. You still get to see what you agree to beforehand. Besides this steps outside of consumer law since it’s an enterprise agreement which specifically wasn’t what I was talking about nor was the EFF.
Either way, this is so far off-topic that it’s silly. RHEL isn’t denying redistributing the GPL 2 binaries, as per the EULA RHEL agreement I pointed to.
That’s not true.
The article says with
windows that pop up before you install a new piece of software, full of legalese.
You don’t have to read it but they have to show you the EULA. That’s the whole EFF argument there is that they aren’t checking hard enough to make sure you read it. The reading it part isn’t exactly what I meant.
Frequently, you aren’t even able to see a EULA until after you’ve purchased the item it covers.
Buying it isn’t entering into the EULA agreement though. They are talking about software you purchase usually from a brick and mortar store that don’t provide the EULA before purchase. Online you can usually even see the EULA before purchase but either way I was talking about it before agreeing to it.
As I said:
You can’t enter into an agreement without reading it first thus you can’t only serve the EULA to subscribers.
It’s literally not legal and completely voids the contract.
Ah, yes, using non-PC controllers on a PC does sound like a nightmare.