- 0 Posts
- 9 Comments
1·8 months agodeleted by creator
I did. And, again at your request. And, what’s your point?
There are plenty of communities to share memes here, not sure why a “tech news” one needs to support this kind of idiocy.
I do appreciate the effort to contain memes. But, quite frankly, I avoid memes like the plague because 9 out of 10 are not funny or insightful — most just regurgitate the same tired tropes and worn out jokes. I am disappointed to find them here.
No, just no. I have already blocked dozens of meme communities, don’t spread that garbage here too.
22·1 year agoBest TL;DR yet!
A finer detail is that Swift was contractually prohibited from new recordings for two years after original contract ended — that time has now passed.
Here’s a great article that covers it quite well:
Re-Recording Your Old Songs: How Taylor Swift is “Shaking Off” Her Old Record Company
0·1 year agoI can’t believe how many people fundamentally misunderstand the spirit behind the GPL.
It helps to consider “the software” as a single snapshot in time, with the GPL’s intention that the consumer may make their own fixes, rebuild, and redistribute. Check.
Remember: “Free as in freedom, not free as in beer.” Selling open source software has always been explicitly allowed, as long as you make the source available to those who receive it. Check.
What the GPL does NOT provide is guaranteed access to maintenance and future versions of said software. Again, it applies to a snapshot, as delivered.
In a nutshell, the customer receives open source everything they FOR A PARTICULAR VERSION.
I see no problem — either in spirit or letter — in Redhat’s approach here.
01·1 year agoNope. This is a terrible hot take that misses the fundamental spirit behind the GPL.
It helps to consider “the software” as a single snapshot in time, with the GPL’s intention that the consumer may make their own fixes, rebuild, and redistribute. Check.
Remember: “Free as in freedom, not free as in beer.” Selling open source software has always been explicitly allowed, as long as you make the source available to those who receive it. Check.
What the GPL does NOT provide is guaranteed access to maintenance and future versions of said software. Again, it applies to a snapshot, as delivered.
In a nutshell, the customer receives open source everything they FOR A PARTICULAR VERSION.
I see no problem — either in spirit or letter — in Redhat’s approach here.
Suck rocks you worthless git!