• Pantherina@feddit.deOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    Its not really proprietary. Developers get the code, and everyone that gets the binaries also gets the code. Thats GPL compliant.

    • Dehydrated@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      To quote Software Freedom Conservancy:

      For approximately twenty years, Red Hat (now a fully owned subsidiary of IBM) has experimented with building a business model for operating system deployment and distribution that looks, feels, and acts like a proprietary one, but nonetheless complies with the GPL and other standard copyleft terms.

      • LeFantome@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        To quote both of you “nevertheless complies with the GPL and other standard copyleft terms”.

        Were you trying to prove his point?

        • med@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          As shocking as this might be, I think he’s agreeing, and offering supplimentary proof

        • Dehydrated@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Obviously they comply with the GPL, otherwise they would get sued. But Red Hat acts exactly like a proprietary software company. That’s what the quote is trying to say.