Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "RedHat Becomes Closed Source (Who Didn't See This Coming?)" video.

  1. It amazes me how many people don't understand what was stated, or the situation as it actually is. They're not closing the source of Linux the kernel, nor could they even if they wanted to. They won't be violating the terms of the GPL as they own the copyright to all the code they've produced and can change the license at any time. The GPL is only viral for third parties. People keep saying copyleft as though it's a legal term. It is not. If I write a piece of software and place it under the GPL, you can come along and make changes, but your changes must be open sourced. I can't incorporate your changes into my code without then contaminating my own copyright on the code, but if I ignore your changes, then I retain all of my rights to the code I've written and can then change the license to something proprietary and closed source, if I so desire. Of course, no one will read this, let alone the people in the comments section who need to read it, but whatever, here it is in case a miracle happens.
    2
  2.  @mskiptr  If they patch pre-existing projects that are licensed under the GPL then yes, they would have to distribute their changes as open source. However, if they only distribute binaries to paying customers they'd still be within their legal obligation if they distributed it only to the paying customers who buy the binaries. They're under no obligation to just give away their changes if they don't distribute their binaries, and then only where they distribute their binaries.
    1
  3.  @milohoffman274  I don't think you read my entire post, try again with a new edit once you understand what I'm saying.
    1