Its funny how podcasters and commenters seem to have taken Redhat’s spin about “contributing value to the community” seriously, while to the rest of us the whole thing was obviously only about money (same as all the follow-ups from other parties… I would say “including Alma” but that would probably deserve its separate debate).
The point of FOSS is not and has never been that people should “contribute value”, that’s the capitalist rhetoric and christian protestant ethic that’s so ingrained in many that people fall for it.
None of the FOSS licenses contain anything about having to contribute, they’re all about preserving the freedom of the software, and contributions automatically emerge from that concept: having the source available empowers people to solve their problems, and the license ensures that they contribute their solutions, but there is absolutely no requirement nor moral obligation for anyone who takes, uses or redistributes FOSS to make a contribution.
Red Hat saying that argument in-particular shows they’ve pivoted their philosophy significantly, it’s a seemingly subtle change but is huge - presumably due to the IBM acquisition, but maybe due to the pressures in the market right now.
It’s the classic argument against FOSS, which Red Hat themselves have argued against for decades and as an organisation proved that you can build a viable business on the back of FOSS whilst also contributing to it, and that there was indirect value in having others use your work. Only time will tell, but the stage is set for Red Hat to cultivate a different relationship with FOSS and move more into proprietary code.
Its funny how podcasters and commenters seem to have taken Redhat’s spin about “contributing value to the community” seriously, while to the rest of us the whole thing was obviously only about money (same as all the follow-ups from other parties… I would say “including Alma” but that would probably deserve its separate debate).
The point of FOSS is not and has never been that people should “contribute value”, that’s the capitalist rhetoric and christian protestant ethic that’s so ingrained in many that people fall for it.
None of the FOSS licenses contain anything about having to contribute, they’re all about preserving the freedom of the software, and contributions automatically emerge from that concept: having the source available empowers people to solve their problems, and the license ensures that they contribute their solutions, but there is absolutely no requirement nor moral obligation for anyone who takes, uses or redistributes FOSS to make a contribution.
Exactly. “Oracle freeloading” isn’t through some loophole they’re exploiting. It’s the core premise of the license to allow them to do exactly that.
Red Hat saying that argument in-particular shows they’ve pivoted their philosophy significantly, it’s a seemingly subtle change but is huge - presumably due to the IBM acquisition, but maybe due to the pressures in the market right now.
It’s the classic argument against FOSS, which Red Hat themselves have argued against for decades and as an organisation proved that you can build a viable business on the back of FOSS whilst also contributing to it, and that there was indirect value in having others use your work. Only time will tell, but the stage is set for Red Hat to cultivate a different relationship with FOSS and move more into proprietary code.