Red Hat is happy to take your code and distribute it, first with minimal changes, and perhaps with more changes over time.
But if you do it, you are a leech.
Love that the Brodie here goes into gatekeeping what is considered a contribution:
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-source-response-gitcentosorg-changes
@Migueldeicaza I suppose this is yet another data point supporting the idea that Open Source Software in a world of capitalism can only exist as a pastime for the already-rich. Only companies extracting profit from *something else* can afford to maintain OSS. Only individuals paid for *something else* can contribute significant time to OSS projects in their spare time.
It’s a precarious thing to profit *directly* from maintaining OSS and selling it as a service, precisely because someone else can copy and repackage your work for less money—which is entirely within the spirit of OSS—and undercut your business model. A business truly in the spirit of GPL would celebrate such a copy; but a business that must profit from their work on OSS would see it as theft of their livelihood.
Some astute observations. I would also add that probably is the reason why don’t see many firms in the form of Redhat existing selling support on OSS. It is too precarious and they don’t have the first mover advantage that Redhat itself had.
@drahardja this is an incredibly accurate assessment of the problem. And I don’t think we have found a viable solution.
This move by red hat is truly tasteless.
@drahardja @Migueldeicaza Disagree. This isn’t about making money or not, this is about making MORE money. This is a squeeze.
What you guys are forgetting is RH is two main things: a brand, and a support company. IBM is killing the brand here with this and doesn’t care because they see more dollars in squeezing the support biz. And they think the IBM brand is infallible and will ultimately just be that anyway.
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
Dave Rahardja
Saad Mahamood
djb_rh
Nate Gaylinn