> Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source, and one that has the potential to revert open source back into a hobbyist- and hackers-only activity
Doesn't Red Hat do the same thing for many packages? Do they substantially contribute to every single project they distribute?
I wonder if this will lead to the creation and mass adoption of GPL v4 explicitly forbidding this loophole(and others which have popped up over the years).
It came as slightly bitter pill to swallow when I realised that one of the most important freedoms granted by open source licenses is the freedom to do something you might not like.
If you really don't like it, to the point where it's an actual problem, then it's probably a hint that you picked the wrong license.
A GPLv4 forbidding that wouldn't be matching the Open source definition.
What is the condition going to be called? You have to make your source open for everyone, even if they don't use your products?
Also, RHELs main point is giving a much longer support life cycle than the original dev, so they are contributing for sure.
Heck Python 2 is still supported on RHEL 8, even though It's now EOL.
Even if they don’t make any changes, or upstream contributions, the integration of individual packages into a full OS distribution is certainly valuable. If you disagree, try Linux From Scratch sometime.
Doesn't Red Hat do the same thing for many packages? Do they substantially contribute to every single project they distribute?
I wonder if this will lead to the creation and mass adoption of GPL v4 explicitly forbidding this loophole(and others which have popped up over the years).