That’s strange. Please let me know what you find out.

This is a great idea, thank you!

I never would have guessed when I first installed RIF that some years later I would end up feeling sad as I uninstalled it.

Ah, okay, this makes sense. I was confusing the product for the source code. If they provide the product, they must provide the source code but they (obviously) aren’t required to provide a product to everyone, so everyone is not entitled to the source code.

I appreciate all of the information and discussion. Thanks all.

To respond to my own initial post: the harm comes from the fact that Redhat is entitled to be the sole distributors of their source code by way of requiring that all those who desire access to the product affirm that they will not distribute the source code the GPL affords them, thereby stopping raw rebuilds of the product (but also potential extensions of Redhat).

And the GPL is okay with that? Can every repo under GPL put up a paywall?

Google: “The GNU General Public License (GNU, GPL, or GPL) is a free software license originally written by Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, which guarantees that users are free to use, share, and modify the software without paying anyone for it.”

Within the analogy (as it compares to Redhat and the Rebuilders), how is Foo helping Bar? Isn’t Foo simply leaving the TVs outside the factory for people to come and pickup? A bunch of trucks branded “Bar” come by, pick some of them up, rebrand them, and take jobs to install them, jobs that Foo thought they were going to get? Isn’t Foo now requiring individual people to walk through a lockable door, sign their name, verify that they don’t work for Bar, and grab a TV instead of just leaving them outside in a pile?

I don’t see how Company Foo can dictate that all other entities (customers, for example) can receive a free TV on their doorstep (since the code is open source) except for Company Bar. To make it map better to the situation, Company Bar would receive a shipment of free TVs, rebrand them, ship them out to customers, and install them.

“They don’t have to give Company Bar TVs to install.” So the GPL doesn’t require that Company Foo permit free access to the TVs? They could decide to not give out their TVs to anyone?

Also, what if I wanted to get my cousin a free TV but charge him a few bucks to install it? Is this only a problem at scale?

Oh, I see. But what do you think of this translation:

“Company Foo makes TVs and is always working to make them better. They give them out for free with the hopes of making money installing them and providing guidance on how to use them, but someone starts Company Bar and installs them for cheaper and starts taking on installation jobs.”

Is this wrong? Isn’t this just the definition of an open market? Please let me know if I’m missing some kind of context. I hope that we can continue to discuss this respectfully.

I should say that I want any open source project with the motivation to write good software to have all of the funding they need to make that happen. I just don’t see how it can be justified in this instance when compared to any other market.

What’s the harm in doing a rebuild? Serious question. I simply don’t understand where the harm comes from. I would appreciate any insight. Thanks.

It’s interesting that the bulk of the article is suggesting that this is a bit overblown.

Quote: "The International Council of Beverages Associations’ executive director Kate Loatman said public health authorities should be “deeply concerned” by the “leaked opinion”, and also warned it “could needlessly mislead consumers into consuming more sugar rather than choosing safe no-and low-sugar options.”

Yeah, looking at these notes, they don’t appear particularly useful for my purposes either. It’s a challenge to find good, ready-to-use material. Thanks for sharing them, though.

If I wanted to use these notes as direct source material for an open source quiz project, would that be okay? I’ve been looking for good, free, open source notes, Q&As, and diagrams but it’s not easy.

I appreciate everyone’s feedback! I’ll report back if I have any issues in my specific case, but hopefully I have the same experience all of you have had.

I had issues searching for Lemmy communities until I updated my docker-compose to give the “lemmy” container it’s own network.

https://lemmy.austinwadeheller.com/comment/14247

Here’s a post on Mastodon that links to their blog where they describe different clients.

https://writing.exchange/@erlend/110616473377954593

I haven’t experienced any crashes. I’m just getting annoyed with it resetting the view when I rotate my phone by accident. It takes me back to Local and changes my filter back to default. Painful.

I feel like putting it in a VM is probably overkill. I just have everything running in Docker containers and it’s pretty good like that.

https://lupyuen.github.io/pinetime-rust-mynewt/articles/watchface

Section 1, step 2 states “update: To update the Watch Face with the current date and time. This is called every minute by the PineTime Firmware to refresh our Watch Face.”

Good to know that it’s touch screen. I would love if I could push a button on this watch and run a POST request to my server. Do you happen to know of that’s possible?

I think we may be talking about two different things with regards to corporate control. I’m saying that, in the case with Redhat specifically, that their injection of a fee to access the source code now no longer makes the code freely available to downstream repositories. If they comically charged a billion dollars to access the source code (with a GPL) it would practically become closed source, so I’m curious why any entity can charge any amount to access open source software. And if it’s totally legal with this type of license, doesn’t that mean that we should be avoiding GPL at all costs?

Correct me if I’m mistaken. What I read from your post sounds to me like you think that we should accept that a company will inject a revenue stream into the process that we all were working on as an open source project. We weren’t expecting to get paid, so why not allow the company to get paid, regardless of the downstream impacts for other projects that once relied on the project being completely free and open. Do I understand that properly? I don’t want to misrepresent your intent. I feel like I must be misunderstanding something.