but if cheesecake factory hired him and supported him to make this discovery, you would look at the menu differently.

I didn’t know the direction either, and went with it for about 50 hours.

Did RedHat say that? This is a pretty problematic statement so I would really love to see the exact text in which they set their position.

It has been reported that the support contract from RedHat says you can’t redistribute the source you receive as part of being a paid customer and they reserve the right to cancel your support contract.

Where is the report? I mean yeh if that’s what RedHat said then they have chosen the path of getting sued to oblivion, but that’s not what the initial argument is about, and that’s also not what Rocky’s new path forward indicates. (https://www.phoronix.com/news/Rocky-Linux-RHEL-Source-Access)

Did RedHat add that restriction? GPL requires source to be distributed along with binary, but the distributor can still decide who to distribute things to. If the only way to access binary is through being a paying customer, I don’t see why RedHat can’t say only paying customers can get access to source.

What’s the GPL violation in that, or did I misunderstand RedHat’s new policy?

The free as in freedom principle isn’t violated. GPL stands. So why all the rage? People call RedHat IBMified, what the hell does it even mean? Has IBM done anything to the community?

Really there is no principle being defended. People’s workflow isn’t even impacted as it stands, they just have to figure out new paths going forward.

Time won’t solve how people are. Most people will treat free as free of charge instead of freedom.