• 0 Posts
  • 65 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 9th, 2023

help-circle




  • Mmm do you know Linux containers? Like Docker containers, for example?

    You need to understand Linux namespace and Linux containers to understand this trick. It isn’t super advanced to be honest, just a Linux feature that is very useful.

    It can be overwhelming if you haven’t worked with containers before: https://youtu.be/fTcit7F5Bcg?si=rQlq0mJyapIpOlx8

    Basically you can have multiple “network stacks” in the same machine, and they are isolated. By network stacks I mean things like the netfilter rules and the routing rules.

    So, if you deploy a VPN inside a network namespace that isn’t the host’s namespace, the host won’t route the traffic to the VPN by default. Only the processes that are attached to that network namespace will process the network packets with the netfilter and routing rules of that namespace. So, if you only attach the Firefox process to the network namespace of the VPN, only the traffic generated by that process will go through the tunnel.











  • OK, so is Redhat breaking any license? Do you really think a company like Redhat would open itself to thousands of lawsuits like that. The CEO already explained that this is totally legal and covered by GPL. They are in fact distributing the source to the people receiving the product. This is exactly what GPL says. They are not forced to open the source code to people who aren’t getting the distributed software.

    What is your complaint then? They are not breaking any law and they are following the GPL license.

    I was using the webframework/language as examples because you said this wasn’t a matter of law but a matter of principle. So why does the principle apply to Redhat but not the million other products that totally depend on FOSS on their core?

    So many projects do in fact distribute the FOSS, but they use more permissive licenses like MIT, Apache or LGPL. BUT you’re saying the law is not relevant, what matters is the principle. So why don’t everyone release their code if they depend on FOSS on their core products? Because they aren’t breaking the Apache or MIT licenses? Well, that’s great! Redhar isn’t breaking the GPL license either. Why must Redhat follow whatever subjective principles you have?

    — “hey there’s this company creating a commercial product around FOSS. They aren’t breaking any license.”

    — “Nice, as long as the licenses aren’t compromised”

    — “It’s Redhat”

    — “Those mofos! How dare they!”


  • Well, the re-builders would be breaking the law now that the source code isn’t available for non-paying customers. They weren’t breaking the law before.

    So, do you expect every company to release the source code of their products just because they used a FOSS web framework or a FOSS programming language like Python? Or by the same logic, for companies to release the source code of their products if their developers use Linux in their development machines? Or if they use Linux to deploy their applications in the cloud? That’s such an unreasonable position.