tpush

It's a loss for both parties, no?

No, this is not true at all.

Quite literally non of what you say is true.

The state of HN on nutrition discourse is completely screwed.

You're being downvoted and the replies to are condescending, but you are actually completely correct and the replies exhibit misinformed groupthink. Goes to show how powerful narratives being pushed YouTube personalities et al can be.

6g per 100g is totally fine.

No, that doesn't work. You can't retroactively change a license like that. What could happen is that future versions get licensed differently (if either all contributors agree, the project used a CLA or is permissively licensed).

Either way however then you could either stop using it or fork the project.

Why shouldn't you be using port 25? You need that if you want to receive email on your own mail server.

> I've yet to see an Apple user who doesn't install brew as a first step before doing anything with their computer.

Most Apple users don't even know what brew is, and I'd be willing to bet that most devs using Macs don't install it either.

Anyway, the larger point that gnome can't succeed because it doesn't offer "choice" is nonsense.

That's on Apple for not supporting WebM in Safari.

Off topic: Mother Theresa wasn't a particularly great person.

macOS and its derivatives are not a BSD.

What choices are backwards?

No, data collection ought to always be based on informed consent. A default enabled checkbox that can easily be skipped over does not constitute informed consent.

I agree that opt-in telemetry however is useless.

Thus, the only ethical and useful option is forced choice; i.e. present the user with two unselected options where a decision between them must be made.

This is e.g. how Apple designed its usage data option for the Apple TV, AFAIK. Two unselected options, given equal weight and styling etc.

Opt-out telemetry is indeed awful, no matter how righteous one feels in the cause to get it.

Twitter is not a Nazi hellscape.

The spirit of the GPL is the user being able to exercise the four freedoms, not more nor less. Red Hat's EULA allows that; your version doesn't.

I'm not nitpicking, what I've said is the difference between GPL compliance and not. This next version of yours is different to Red Hat's EULA in the same way.

Your version rescinds freedom 4 upon using an updated version. Red Hat's EULA doesn't do that.

No, I didn't. I'm not sure where you get that from?

Anyway, Red Hat's EULA doesn't restrict freedom 4. You asserted an alternative formulation where it does infringe to be equivalent.

I reject that equivalence assertion. Does that make it clear?

No, I'm saying your formulation doesn't match Red Hat's EULA.

I don't see how that is equivalent to what Red Hat is doing. They never restrict your freedom 4 with their EULA. Only availability of future binaries. All already received binaries have their licenses intact and unrestricted, even if you break the EULA.

Monetization of open source only really works if

a) the non-commercial usage is restricted, so there's a reason to buy a commercial license, and

b) The copyright is assigned to a singular person or entity so there's no confusion as the recipient of money.

Sadly both of these things conflict with Open Source either definitionally ("no restrictions on use") or in spirit ("single copyright holder/CLA means no or an exploited community").

Red Hat does all that and beyond pretty much better than any other companies out there.

That comparison doesn't work in exactly the way that illustrates Red Hat's compliance with the GPL.

Yes, if the consequence of excercising freedom is death(or imprisonment) then you aren't actually free, because killing (or imprisonment) stops you from excercising freedom. Red Hat terminating your license does not stop you from excercising the freedom the GPL gives you.

That's not the consensus and "minimal" compliance is not a thing.

What is the use case for needing to test stuff in RHEL that isn't an Enterprise App where you want/need to buy a license anyway?

Like, why do you care about RHEL at all in a way that isn't covered by CentOS Stream?

Red Hat supplies the source to everyone their distributing the binaries to, no violation here.

Why not just test your stuff on CentOS Stream or even just Fedora?

RHEL is for big business having bespoke applications; unless you need the stability nobody expects normal open source devs to make RHEL their testbed.

No it cannot.

On one side your Red Hat:

- takes non commercial open source and does integration and sells support. Also contributes to a megaton of open source projects across all layers of Linux.

The other you have the rebuilds:

- take Red Hat's commercial but open source work

- does no integration work whatsoever, since RHEL's already done that

- trivial contributions to almost no open source projects that aren't only necessary for their position as a clone

- undercuts RHEL in support offering since they don't have to do practically anything themselves.

So yeah, RHEL is an excellent citizen of open source and the others are just parasitic freeloaders.

Red Hat's EULA does not violate the GPL and what Oracle does is obviously wrong, it's parasitic and in the long term will kill RHEL (and thus also Oracle's version).