Beta testing is great. Just not when it's for Red Hat(Fedora), Canonical, Microsoft (WSL) or any other Greedy Corp. when they are requesting this in the spirit of open source.
Not how open source works, you don't get to choose who benefits from it, it's for anyone who wants to use it. Ubuntu is downstream of Debian is it not?
Well Red Hat put up a paywall so that only those who they choose, can get the code. That's the issue. Then they justified it by calling users who want the code "free loaders". That's typical proprietary speak, it has no place in open source.
Ubuntu is downstream of Debian. But canonical have taken it, forced snaps on users, forced opt out telemetry in users and removed default flatpak support. All very user hostile moves.
Hence I'm calling the community to show these corps we don't need them and community distros have everything we need while protecting user freedom.
Remember what I said about hearsay? Everything in Fedora is FOSS, everything in RHEL is also FOSS (because it's in CentOS Stream). All the code is released, not behind a "paywall". All that Red Hat have done is make it more difficult for companies to sell a 1:1 "bug for bug compatible" RHEL clone - those are the "free loaders" being spoken of and who they're targeting, not the Linux community, it's people like Oracle (who incidentally are also the ones fanning the flames of this drama).
I'm no fan of Canonical, but even with your description you're really sensationalising things there as well. The point is by supporting Debian you're inadvertently supporting Canonical - I don't think that's a problem myself but it seems you have double standards.
I would like to quote for you from Gnu.org, Richard Stallman's organization that invented the idea of free software. Here he explains what that means. I'll link to the full webpage below.
"Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.** If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license.** If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software,” we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, study and change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes."
Beta testing is great. Just not when it's for Red Hat(Fedora), Canonical, Microsoft (WSL) or any other Greedy Corp. when they are requesting this in the spirit of open source.
Rather beta test for Debian
Not how open source works, you don't get to choose who benefits from it, it's for anyone who wants to use it. Ubuntu is downstream of Debian is it not?
Well Red Hat put up a paywall so that only those who they choose, can get the code. That's the issue. Then they justified it by calling users who want the code "free loaders". That's typical proprietary speak, it has no place in open source.
Ubuntu is downstream of Debian. But canonical have taken it, forced snaps on users, forced opt out telemetry in users and removed default flatpak support. All very user hostile moves.
Hence I'm calling the community to show these corps we don't need them and community distros have everything we need while protecting user freedom.
Remember what I said about hearsay? Everything in Fedora is FOSS, everything in RHEL is also FOSS (because it's in CentOS Stream). All the code is released, not behind a "paywall". All that Red Hat have done is make it more difficult for companies to sell a 1:1 "bug for bug compatible" RHEL clone - those are the "free loaders" being spoken of and who they're targeting, not the Linux community, it's people like Oracle (who incidentally are also the ones fanning the flames of this drama).
I'm no fan of Canonical, but even with your description you're really sensationalising things there as well. The point is by supporting Debian you're inadvertently supporting Canonical - I don't think that's a problem myself but it seems you have double standards.
I would like to quote for you from Gnu.org, Richard Stallman's organization that invented the idea of free software. Here he explains what that means. I'll link to the full webpage below.
"Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.** If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license.** If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software,” we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, study and change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes."
(Emphasis mine)
Source: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
As you can see, anyone who obtains the code CAN redistribute it unchanged, bug for bug…
I rest my case.
You haven't even made a case to rest.
Can you read? Read the full article.