No humor in Lemmy, please.

This is exactly what I was going to say. Copying and pasting passwords is definetely a no-no for me.

And that’s why I’m saying social democracy is a realistic solution. The way the world works right now makes breaking this dependency something idealistic. So you can either fantasize with ideals all day long or you can get closer to your objective.

And yet, I’m not going bankrupt after someone in my family used an ambulance.

Well, show me a single system (currently implemented, not ideal or imaginary) that isn’t exploiting goods and labor from the third world.

Exactly. They are twisting reality to justify their shirty actions.

Yeha, that’s my point. They automatically put you in the far-right if you don’t agree with a principle of communism.

The US is the largest global economy. How is it that free healthcare is a thing even in developing countries?

A few days ago my grandfather used an ambulance and the total cost was $0. I live in a developing country.

I see a fellow social democrat and I upvote.

People here think that if you agree with private property and private incentive then you suck billionaires d*cks.

Man, there is a whole spectrum that is much more realistic than pure communism or socialism.

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.

So you never intended to buy the product but you intended to use it?

Do you understand they are charging you for the usage, not for your intentions or moral views?

Push bracelets on you? Who is forcing you to use their software? Please let me know, we can call the police man, that’s fucked up.

1. they are not breaking any law. This is totally allowed. You can use FOSS to create a commercial product.

2. they are major contributors to the Linux space. And they’ll keep contributing.

3. It’s their effort, they created a business around it, and it cycles back to push Linux forward.

4. this isn’t even going to affect average users. This is going to take money from companies that probably have the money to pay. For other companies, there are other distributions available.

You’re taking away the profit they deserve for the work and effort it took them to create the information.

— “we don’t like people ripping off our work without any added value”

— “Here, let me push this to your staging environment, totally breaking your quality process”

— “No”

— “Well, what the hell do you want broo?”

I don’t think they have ever hidden the fact this is about money. I don’t like the fact this is about money, but the fact that others were cloning and selling their efforts for a cheaper price is awful.

When they think it is morally correct, yeha. When they think piracy is morally correct and ethical, they are basically disregarding private property and private incentive. They think it is their right to have free access to information that others worked to create.

I wouldn’t have a problem if they accepted they are basically stealing, at least I’d respect that, but they won’t. They think piracy is freeing society from capitalism. If you don’t believe me, keep reading the posts in this community.

All Nolan movies, except Tenet.

The only security threat would be the site itself. How do they know other users have the same password?

Options:

• They have your password in plain text in their DB. CHEFF KISS

• They aren’t using salts.

• They are using the same salt for everyone.

All of them concerning.

YouTube shorts are awful. Most of them are just incomplete YouTube videos.