|
| ▲ | tremon a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| This violates the GPL, which explicitly states that recipients are entitled to the source tree in a form suitable for modification -- which a web view is not. |
| |
|
| ▲ | Aperocky a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Don't forget RH is owned by IBM. |
|
| ▲ | OsrsNeedsf2P a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Honestly just hearing this makes me want to get all their binaries, request the code, scrape it with OCR and upload it somewhere |
| |
| ▲ | dralley a day ago | parent [-] | | But that would be silly, because all of the code and binaries is already available via CentOS Stream. There's nothing in RHEL that isn't already public at some point via CentOS Stream. There's nothing special or proprietary about the RHEL code. Access to the code isn't an issue, it's reconstructing an exact replica of RHEL from all of the different package versions that are available to you, which is a huge temporal superset of what is specifically in RHEL. |
|