I see a lot of people angry about redhat's decisions of not wanting to redistribute source code to others but I think that should be completely within their rights. The way I see it is like I am a developer of let's say a music player. I make my source code public because I want people to see what they're downloading and may be get advice what I can change to make it better. I charge $10 for my app. And then someone else downloads my code, compiles it and redistributes it in his name with few changes. Then why would people want to use my app when they get same app for free? I think then, it's completely within my right to make it closed source in that case as that's what I make money from. Sure, my app is based on a free and open source framework but then there's also such a thing as consent

They consented their framework to be used for development. I don't consent my app to be redistributed. Why is it an issue?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SeeJayEmm@lemmy.procrastinati.org 4 points 1 year ago

Your use of the word framework makes me think you are confused.

If you use an open source IDE to do your development, you're not obligated to release your project, your novel invention, under the same license.

If you take someone else's work, and modify or redistribute it, you are bound by the license of that project. You dont get to just do whatever you want with someone else's work just because they released the code publicly.

Many Linux components, including the kernel, are under the GPL license. That license requires that derivative works be licensed GPL and source code be made available.

Large portions of Redhat Linux are GPL licensed. They are required to provide source code for those portions.

If Redhat were to develop something that was not derived of a GPL project, they could license it however they want.