That’s strange. Please let me know what you find out.

This is a great idea, thank you!

Ah, okay, this makes sense. I was confusing the product for the source code. If they provide the product, they must provide the source code but they (obviously) aren’t required to provide a product to everyone, so everyone is not entitled to the source code.

I appreciate all of the information and discussion. Thanks all.

To respond to my own initial post: the harm comes from the fact that Redhat is entitled to be the sole distributors of their source code by way of requiring that all those who desire access to the product affirm that they will not distribute the source code the GPL affords them, thereby stopping raw rebuilds of the product.

And the GPL is okay with that? Can every repo under GPL put up a paywall?

Google: “The GNU General Public License (GNU, GPL, or GPL) is a free software license originally written by Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, which guarantees that users are free to use, share, and modify the software without paying anyone for it.”

Within the analogy (as it compares to Redhat and the Rebuilders), how is Foo helping Bar? Isn’t Foo simply leaving the TVs outside the factory for people to come and pickup? A bunch of trucks branded “Bar” come by, pick some of them up, rebrand them, and take jobs to install them, jobs that Foo thought they were going to get? Isn’t Foo now requiring individual people to walk through a lockable door, sign their name, verify that they don’t work for Bar, and grab a TV instead of just leaving them outside in a pile?

I don’t see how Company Foo can dictate that all other entities (customers, for example) can receive a free TV on their doorstep (since the code is open source) except for Company Bar. To make it map better to the situation, Company Bar would receive a shipment of free TVs, rebrand them, ship them out to customers, and install them.

“They don’t have to give Company Bar TVs to install.” So the GPL doesn’t require that Company Foo permit free access to the TVs? They could decide to not give out their TVs to anyone?

Also, what if I wanted to get my cousin a free TV but charge him a few bucks to install it? Is this only a problem at scale?

Oh, I see. But what do you think of this translation:

“Company Foo makes TVs and is always working to make them better. They give them out for free with the hopes of making money installing them and providing guidance on how to use them, but someone starts Company Bar and installs them for cheaper and starts taking on installation jobs.”

Is this wrong? Isn’t this just the definition of an open market? Please let me know if I’m missing some kind of context. I hope that we can continue to discuss this respectfully.

I should say that I want any open source project with the motivation to write good software to have all of the funding they need to make that happen. I just don’t see how it can be justified in this instance when compared to any other market.

What’s the harm in doing a rebuild? Serious question. I simply don’t understand where the harm comes from. I would appreciate any insight. Thanks.

I appreciate everyone’s feedback! I’ll report back if I have any issues in my specific case, but hopefully I have the same experience all of you have had.

I had issues searching for Lemmy communities until I updated my docker-compose to give the “lemmy” container it’s own network.

https://lemmy.austinwadeheller.com/comment/14247

I don’t know… if joins are so good, why did it take so long for them to show up via SQL? /s

Deep down we all know that writing to flat files is the best way. /s

I had to work out all of the issues myself to get it working on my RaspberryPi 4. For this error, did you add a network to your “lemmy” container that would allow it access to the internet?

https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3167#issuecomment-1595846910

I’m still using 0.17.3, btw. I haven’t checked if 0.17.4 for arm64 is out yet.