Suck rocks you worthless git!

deleted by creator

I did. And, again at your request. And, what’s your point?

There are plenty of communities to share memes here, not sure why a “tech news” one needs to support this kind of idiocy.

I do appreciate the effort to contain memes. But, quite frankly, I avoid memes like the plague because 9 out of 10 are not funny or insightful — most just regurgitate the same tired tropes and worn out jokes. I am disappointed to find them here.

No, just no. I have already blocked dozens of meme communities, don’t spread that garbage here too.

Please. Climate change has been a well-lnown phenomena for a very long time. Scientists in the 19th century were warning that rising CO2 from human-caused emissions could harm the climate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

We can agree to disagree. “The Software” was delivered, source included. And you as end consumer are free to redistribute and maintain as you wish.

However, I cannot see any contract law judgement that would force continuation of a subscription model on the vendor (in perpetuity!) if they do not wish to remain under contract.

Best TL;DR yet!

A finer detail is that Swift was contractually prohibited from new recordings for two years after original contract ended — that time has now passed.

Here’s a great article that covers it quite well:

Re-Recording Your Old Songs: How Taylor Swift is “Shaking Off” Her Old Record Company

That’s a fair point, and worthy of deliberation.

However, I would continue to argue that if Redhat does not restrict parties’ rights to the source code they’ve been given, then they’ve satisfied the GPL.

It is my understanding (at least initially) that the GPL was meant to solidify the end user’s rights to the software they have, so that they’re not left with an unfixable binary executable.

And again, there are no rights granted by the GPL for FUTURE versions.

I can’t believe how many people fundamentally misunderstand the spirit behind the GPL.

It helps to consider “the software” as a single snapshot in time, with the GPL’s intention that the consumer may make their own fixes, rebuild, and redistribute. Check.

Remember: “Free as in freedom, not free as in beer.” Selling open source software has always been explicitly allowed, as long as you make the source available to those who receive it. Check.

What the GPL does NOT provide is guaranteed access to maintenance and future versions of said software. Again, it applies to a snapshot, as delivered.

In a nutshell, the customer receives open source everything they FOR A PARTICULAR VERSION.

I see no problem — either in spirit or letter — in Redhat’s approach here.