Subscribe
& more

Episode 06

Do We Still Need Strong Copyleft Licenses?

Compiler

Show Notes

It’s a good idea to understand the open source licenses governing the projects you use. Luckily, it’s less daunting than you may think. We start with the very basics of copyright and move to open source and the difference between permissive and copyleft licenses—and how they govern the world of open source software.

 

But we learn how these distinctions may not be as relevant as they once were. The landscape of tech is changing. Developer culture isn’t what it used to be—and neither is how we consume software. We ask: Do we still need strong copyleft licenses?

Transcript

00:01 - Brent Simoneaux

All right, Johan. What do you have for us today?

00:04 - Johan Philippine

Today, I want to talk about open source licenses.

00:09 - Angela Andrews

Okay.

00:11 - Johan Philippine

We work for an open source company.

00:13 - Angela Andrews

True.

00:13 - Brent Simoneaux

We do.

00:14 - Johan Philippine

But I'll go ahead and be brave and admit that I don't actually know all that much about the licenses that kind of support the whole community. How much do you know Brent? Angela?

00:26 - Angela Andrews

I know a little. I know that there are licenses that you can apply to the code that you put out on GitHub. You can pick a couple. You usually pick the one that you've picked the last time depending on the last project that you use. It's more of like a cookie cutter. You just pick one that's open and you keep moving. You post it on your repo so folks know that they can just use your stuff freely. I don't know any more than that.

00:52 - Johan Philippine

Brent, what about you?

00:53 - Brent Simoneaux

I think licenses to me are a little bit like alphabet soup, because they all have acronyms and they all... I know the acronyms and I have a vague understanding of them. But I’ve got to admit, I don't know a lot about this topic.

01:07 - Johan Philippine

Well, today we're going to sift through that alphabet soup. It's a lot to go through.

01:13 - Brent Simoneaux

Soup sifting.

01:15 - Johan Philippine

But the one thing that I really want to focus on today are copyleft licenses. Now, that's a certain type of open source license.

01:24 - Brent Simoneaux

Okay.

01:24 - Johan Philippine

They were once really popular and now, and they're kind of losing their edge. I wanted to ask, do we still need strong copyleft licenses?

01:33 - Brent Simoneaux

Is that heresy? Are you allowed to ask that question, Johan?

01:37 - Johan Philippine

I don't know.

01:38 - Angela Andrews

Well, it's too late. He's already asked it.

01:41 - Johan Philippine

I've asked it. It's on the air.

01:42 - Brent Simoneaux

I guess we got to do this.

01:43 - Brent Simoneaux

This is Compiler, an original podcast from Red Hat.

01:51 - Angela Andrews

We're your hosts.

01:53 - Brent Simoneaux

I'm Brent Simoneaux.

01:54 - Angela Andrews

And I'm Angela Andrews.

01:56 - Brent Simoneaux

We're here to break down questions from the tech industry, big, small, and sometimes strange.

02:03 - Angela Andrews

Each episode, we go out in search of answers from Red Hatters and people they're connected to.

02:09 - Brent Simoneaux

Today's question, do we still need strong copyleft licenses?

02:18 - Angela Andrews

Producer Johan Philippine is here to help us out.

02:22 - Johan Philippine

In order to understand everything about open source, we're going to need to have a little bit of a baseline understanding of copyright. Everyone's heard this term before. I'm just going to give you a very high level non-legal definition. It's basically a legal protection for a piece of intellectual property.

02:39 - Johan Philippine

In today's episode, we're going to be talking about code as intellectual property. And it gives the copyright holder exclusive rights over the copying and distribution of that property. Typically, that's the default state of any piece of software. There are some extenuating circumstances where that's not the case. Really, you shouldn't be posting code without a license at all because it's seen as bad practice as it can lead to confusion. 

Now, one thing I just mentioned is that the distribution of the property is a big part of it. We're going to come back to this much later. So put a pin in that and remember it, but we're going to move on for now.

03:20 - Brent Simoneaux

There are open source licenses and there are proprietary licenses. Is that the right way to think about this?

03:29 - Johan Philippine

Broad strokes? Yes. I mean, technically it's proprietary on one side and then open source and freeware and free software licenses on the other side, but we're not going to discuss all of them today. We're just going to cover the open source licenses.

03:47 - Brent Simoneaux

Got it.

03:48 - Johan Philippine

Now, in order to go over a lot of these definitions and really help us understand the different types of open source licenses, I needed some help. So I talked to a lawyer. Heather Meeker is a partner at O'Melveny & Myers and she's an expert on open source licenses.

04:07 - Heather Meeker

You need open source licenses to share software. There are plenty of projects that don't even have any license terms. Now, that's not a good thing because that means it's not clear that people will have the right to use the software the way they want to.

04:24 - Johan Philippine

If you want to share your software, you need to put some sort of open source license on there so that you're making it clear to everyone else, Angela, like you were saying that it's not closed source that they can actually use it without any repercussions down the line.

04:39 - Johan Philippine

Now, within open source, you've got two more kinds of licenses. And first off, they are the permissive licenses. These include the Apache License, the Berkeley Software Distribution (or BSD License) and the MIT License.

04:55 - Angela Andrews

Those are the ones I've heard of and used.

04:58 - Johan Philippine

It's what a lot of people think about when they think about open source. You slap a license on it and you're just saying, "Okay, here you go. Just use it. I don't really care what you do with it."

05:09 - Brent Simoneaux

I think what I hear you saying is that this is both protecting the person who has originally created this or the group of people who have originally created this, but then it's also giving permission to other people to use it and change it and do whatever they want with it.

05:27 - Johan Philippine

Yeah, exactly. Here's how Heather Meeker put it.

05:30 - Heather Meeker

A permissive license, that is almost no protection for the license or really, the only protection is that there's what we call a warranty disclaimer. Those are the terms in the big capital letters. And they basically say, "Here's the software. Do what you want with it, but whatever you do with it, it's not my problem."

05:54 - Johan Philippine

On the other hand, there's the other kind of open source licensing, which is called copyleft. It's a bit more restrictive, but it's a mirror of copyright. So copyright, copyleft.

06:05 - Brent Simoneaux

Oh my God.

06:07 - Angela Andrews

Are you keeping track?

06:08 - Johan Philippine

There's that light bulb moment, right?

06:10 - Brent Simoneaux

Oh God.

06:11 - Johan Philippine

A few of these copyleft licenses, those are pretty popular. The GPL or the GNU General Public License, that one's probably the most popular one. And then there's also the Mozilla Public License, MPL. Those are both widely used copyleft licenses.

06:28 - Heather Meeker

Copyleft is... It's probably the most complicated concept in open source licensing, but you can really reduce it down to a couple of pretty simple rules. The rules are if you distribute the software in binary form, either modified or unmodified, you have to make the source code available to people who receive the binaries and you have to make the corresponding source code available.

06:53 - Johan Philippine

All right. Let's see if we understand copyleft. Angela, do you want to do this together?

06:59 - Angela Andrews

Yes.

06:59 - Johan Philippine

Let's see if we're tracking here.

07:01 - Angela Andrews

Oh boy. Here we go.

07:02 - Brent Simoneaux 

All right. You start.

07:07 - Angela Andrews

The copyleft is basically where you are saying, "I'm going to take this license and because you're going to use this code, you're going to have to adhere to it. Meaning anything that you do with this code and anything that comes from this code, you're going to have to share." Am I getting that right? Like you have to make that source code just as open because you've used this piece of software that has this particular license. Is that tracking?

07:36 - Johan Philippine

That's part of it. If you make that source code available because you are distributing that piece of software, that's when the copyleft comes into play. If you make changes, but don't distribute or only distribute the program internally, then the GPL or other copyleft licenses do not compel you to share the source code.

07:58 - Brent Simoneaux

Got it.

07:59 - Johan Philippine

But wait, there's more.

08:02 - Brent Simoneaux

I knew you weren't done. How did I know there was going to be more?

08:05 - Johan Philippine

Because it's complicated.

08:07 - Brent Simoneaux

Yes.

08:08 - Johan Philippine

The other thing to keep in mind is that using copyleft covered code does not automatically mean that it covers your proprietary code. A lot of people misunderstand it as viral or infectious and that's just not the case. If the copyleft covered code is not added to, or is not required to run the proprietary program, then it does not extend the terms of the license to that program.

08:38 - Brent Simoneaux

Meaning that it does not move through your stack.

08:41 - Johan Philippine

Exactly. In some cases, it would.

08:44 - Brent Simoneaux

But in most cases?

08:46 - Johan Philippine

In most cases, it does not.

08:48 - Brent Simoneaux

Okay.

08:48 - Johan Philippine

Now again, one last time as a reminder, if you're not distributing the code externally, the copyleft terms don't apply.

08:56 - Angela Andrews

Okay.

09:00 - Brent Simoneaux

In my mind, I'm almost imagining a whiteboard and we're going to draw little boxes on there. At the top there, we have copyright and open source and then underneath the open source box, it's going to branch off into two other boxes. And one of those is going to be permissive licenses and this includes licenses like Apache, BSD, MIT License, and then the box next to it underneath open source licenses is going to be copyleft. And these are licenses like GPL and MPL. Is that right? Did I do it?

09:40 - Johan Philippine

You did it.

09:41 - Angela Andrews

You nailed it!

09:42 - Brent Simoneaux

All right.

09:43 - Johan Philippine

All right. Now, we know what we're talking about and we've got some of our acronyms straight.

09:49 - Brent Simoneaux

We'll see.

09:50 - Johan Philippine

Let's take a look at how we got here. In the '90s and the early aughts, not a great time for open source in terms of public perception, there was a lot of fear, uncertainty around open source licenses and it didn't really help that new licenses kept popping up all over the place.

10:11 - Brent Simoneaux

And there were a lot of debates at this time, right?

10:15 - Johan Philippine

Oh, yeah. There was a debate raging about which kind of free or open source licenses was "better" for the community. Permissive versus copyleft.

10:26 - Brent Simoneaux

Raging.

10:28 - Johan Philippine

It got real heated. It's cooled off since then.

10:32 - Brent Simoneaux

I kind of want to know more about it though.

10:35 - Johan Philippine

That's a story for another day.

10:37 - Brent Simoneaux

Yeah.

10:38 - Johan Philippine

I was really only vaguely aware of what was going on in open source at the time. So, for a detailed account of the early days of open source, I spoke to Josh Berkus. He's a community architect at Red Hat, but he's also a long time member of the Open Source Initiatives Review Board.

11:00 - Josh Berkus

If you go back to 2002, it was standard practice that if you launched a brand new open source project, you wrote your own license from scratch rather than reusing existing license. And the only real exception to that was a lot of people reuse the GPL Version 2. But if you weren't using the GPL Version 2, often you wrote your own license and by 2005 or so, most of us who worked in open source were realizing that this was a real problem, that users could not be expected to keep track of a catalog of open source licenses that had hundreds of different licenses in it.

11:41 - Johan Philippine

Can you imagine trying to get your start in open source and just seeing the sea of licenses and not having any idea what the differences were between all of them? That would just be so intimidating.

11:56 - Angela Andrews

For sure. It's definitely something that could be considered a barrier because there was no formal agreement on what type of licenses and people just writing, free-styling, coming up with more and more licenses. How do you choose? How does one choose? We're in 2005 where all heck was breaking loose.

12:15 - Brent Simoneaux

This sounds like a very chaotic moment, right?

12:18 - Johan Philippine

Yeah. But thankfully with some effort in the community by organizations like the Open Source Initiative, The Debian Project, and the Free Software Foundation, the open source community has kind of rallied around five to six licenses as the standards.

12:37 - Heather Meeker

Over time, standardization has been one of the huge hidden benefits of open source licensing. Before open source licensing was quite so prevalent, when you did a due diligence process on software licensing, it was extremely complicated. The process would be, you would get a list of components and a list of licenses and you would have to read every license and then compare that against what the company was doing with the software and see if they were consistent.

13:08 - Johan Philippine

And that would create a lot of work for the lawyers. But just imagine if you were a developer trying to figure out if you could use a piece of software and this is something that Josh Berkus has told us about. Back in the day, you would have to read all of these licenses to figure it out yourself if you didn't have the resources of a company or a lawyer to do that. It was a huge problem.

13:31 - Brent Simoneaux

This feels a lot easier for a company to navigate.

13:35 - Angela Andrews

For sure.

13:35 - Brent Simoneaux

Because you have your in-house counsel or you have your lawyer on retainer that is going to help you navigate all of this. This seems very complicated for an individual.

13:47 - Johan Philippine

Yeah.

13:48 - Angela Andrews

Yes. I mean, imagine having to sort through this catalog or not even the catalog, like reading the legalese inside each and every one of these licenses to see if they can apply to your product. I mean, we don't even read the EULAs. Can you imagine trying to comb through an open source license and trying to decipher the legalese in that? That can't be easy for the lone developer.

14:17 - Brent Simoneaux

There's a lot of chaos. People are writing their own licenses. There are a ton of licenses out there. Standards start to be created. What happens next?

14:27 - Johan Philippine

Well, it turns out that when you standardize something, it makes it much easier for a large group of people to understand what it means. And so, that wasn't just a boon for open source licenses. That was a boon for the software industry as a whole.

14:46 - Heather Meeker

The attitudes have changed hugely and people are not as afraid of, say, copyleft licenses as they used to be. But at the same time, copyleft licensing has become a little less popular than it used to be. I think if you look at the statistics, every year, the number of projects or however you count it, because that's actually a non-trivial question. They move a little bit more towards the permissive licenses like Apache, BSD, MIT and away from the copyleft licenses like GPL and LDPL. And I think that I would mostly attribute that to a sort of generational change in how developers feel about releasing their own code. The industry has changed and then the mindset of developers has changed over time.

15:37 - Brent Simoneaux

I think I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding what Heather is saying there. Can you parse this a little bit for us?

15:44 - Johan Philippine

Sure. Basically, as the standardization took root, the industry as a whole kind of changed in its view of open source, because everyone started understanding them a little bit more and thinking like, "Oh, okay. If I put a copyleft license or if I use a piece of software that has a copyleft license on it, it's not going to make my entire program, my entire stack open source." It just means that that one piece of software that is attached to it is going to stay open source. And so, there's a lot less fear about using open source software and copyleft software.

16:16 - Johan Philippine

Now, that kind of changed the attitudes because that fear was gone and people started using it more. Developers now have a much... it's much more ingrained in them that "share your software" is not only okay, it's actually the preferred way to do things because if you do that, then everyone has this shared understanding of what they can and can't do with the code based on the license that's attached to it. 

Now, a lot of that work was done by copyleft licenses, making sure that the code would stay free and that credit was shared. But now that the culture has shifted a little bit, it seems that developers in general are moving away from copyleft licenses. And Heather actually goes into a little bit more detail about how that happened.

16:58 - Heather Meeker

Well, I think in a way, the copyleft licensing model is a bit of a victim of its own success because it worked extremely well for Linux and it was very necessary to get people to share improvements to Linux. They needed a license like that that had a legal compulsion to share source code, but as time went on, I think the industry internalized the value of collaboration in a way it never had before. In part, because it was forced to, having to comply with the GPL. And so, in that respect, people will often share changes even if they're not compelled to by the license.

17:39 - Brent Simoneaux

What you're saying is that there's a generational shift that has happened. There are developers and there are companies that came about before the standardization and they sort of had to go through this struggle and go through this process. And so, they understand the value of this. And then there are developers and there are companies that have come about after these standards have been set and after these licenses have become largely accepted and so, they take it for granted.

18:18 - Johan Philippine

Yes. Here's the question though? Is this necessarily a bad thing? It's kind of an open question at this point.

18:25 - Angela Andrews

It is because products are still being created. Software is still being put out there, open source software, which is the popular way to do anything nowadays. I think it is not curbing innovation at all. That shift to more permissive, I think that's just the way the open source movement has kind of moved. So much so, I mean, you think of there are events around contributing to open source. It's ubiquitous with sharing and learning more about a product and contributing and being a part of something big. This generational change that you mentioned is kind of indicative of the generation that has changed. You know what I mean? This is just what they do now. I like to see that. We all know now that open source is better.

19:19 - Johan Philippine

That would be a great way to think about it if the world of tech kind of stayed where it is now. The culture has changed in such a way that everyone is sharing and open source seems to have won. But unfortunately, the world of tech does not stand still.

19:38 - Brent Simoneaux

No, it doesn't.

19:39 - Johan Philippine

And that has some possible challenges to the open source licensing model. With this idea that the community is now kind of taking licenses a bit for granted and maybe not taking as close of a look as we should be, there's a fear and there are actually some instances where companies take advantage of more permissive licenses and shift things back to a more proprietary world. Because open source has become the default, a lot of people no longer actually read the terms of the software they're using because they're told upfront not really to worry about it.

20:14 - Josh Berkus

And that creates an opportunity for people who want to tinker with licenses in a malicious way. Because if people are not looking at how, what they want to use is licensed, then it is very easy to accidentally adopt something that was, in fact, not genuinely open, that contained terms that you didn't actually want to agree to because you were assuming that everything was certifiably open source license and it actually isn't.

20:41 - Johan Philippine

That's a pretty big problem. Companies slip in, either they'll take an existing open source license and add a single clause to it that basically invalidates the whole open part about it or they'll come up with another new license that is somewhat similar, but takes it much farther than what a typical open source license would do.

21:06 - Angela Andrews

That really kind of puts a damper on what open source is. Most of us are just average tinkerers and now, it's like, again, buyer beware, you really don't know what you're getting yourself into unless you're going through this with a fine tooth comb. You just have to be careful it seems.

21:24 - Brent Simoneaux

Is Josh saying that people are doing this on purpose and being malicious or is he saying that it is by accident?

21:33 - Johan Philippine

He's saying that some companies are adjusting the open source license to better fit their business model. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, we don't want to denigrate companies because they're trying to make money, but the problem is that if they're trying to sell something as open source when it isn't, then at that point, you're deceiving your user.

22:01 - Brent Simoneaux

How do we fix this?

22:04 - Johan Philippine

Vigilance and education. Josh suggests having organizations and big companies like the Linux Foundation, the OSI, Debian, the Free Software Foundation to do a little bit more to educate, which is what they did 20 years ago to get everyone to agree on standards and to agree on the open source definition. But once everything became accepted and standardized, that education component kind of fell to the wayside. And so, he suggests kind of starting that back up again and getting people to understand what open source means and to teach them to be a little bit more vigilant about the licenses that they're using and on the software that they're trying to use.

22:45 - Johan Philippine

That's a doable fix. That's something we've done in the past. What's less simple though is that there's kind of a dark cloud that's growing over the world of open source licenses. Now, remember at the top of the episode, I mentioned, we'd come back to distribution? It's basically the basis of copyright and copyleft licenses like the GPL. They rely on that distribution of the software to be enforceable at all. We talked about when distribution triggers the license term, but the way we're using software is changing and that means distribution isn't such a straightforward term anymore.

23:22 - Josh Berkus

We have shifted from an industry where most software is delivered in the form of physical media or direct downloads of binaries or direct downloads of software distribution bundles to a software world in which the majority of software is used as a service either over the web or over a mobile network. And a lot of the focus in license text on some of the older licenses, it's focused around sort of physical redistribution of the bits in the program and therefore, there's a big open question in how do we ensure that licensing terms are respected if the way that things get deployed to the user is now as a service on a public web resource.

24:13 - Brent Simoneaux

Johan, can you decode some of this for us?

24:16 - Johan Philippine

I can certainly try. I think what Josh is saying here is that when you're accessing a program on a cloud-based service through your browser, for example, you're not actually downloading anything to your device permanently. You're not installing software like we used to from CDs or downloading from the Internet and then installing it on your computer. There's the argument that the software is therefore not being distributed. At that point, you're accessing the software at its source, but you're not permanently copying it and moving it to your own computer in order to use it.

24:54 - Angela Andrews

We're just using it in the browser and it's back somewhere on someone's server out of our grasp and they're giving us access to it.

25:02 - Johan Philippine

Exactly.

25:03 - Angela Andrews

There's really nothing physical about it anymore.

25:07 - Johan Philippine

That kind of throws up in the air, the enforcement of these copyleft licenses. If you're not distributing the software, then, well, you don't really have to share the source code, so goes the argument.

25:21 - Brent Simoneaux

There's some talk about enforcement here. What does enforcement look like? This is like legal action, right?

25:27 - Johan Philippine

Exactly. Enforcement basically means that if someone verifiably takes open source code and then distributes it without complying with the license terms, they could be sued.

25:38 - Heather Meeker

There was a period where everybody was wondering whether the licenses were enforceable at all and who would enforce them and so forth. And that pretty quickly gave way to a model of community enforcement, meaning enforcement by groups who usually represented individual authors. Often, they did it free of charge, it's like pro bono representation. And they would try to get people to comply with the licenses that the way that they operated and the way they still operate is that their main goal would be compliance instead of going after companies for damages or injunctions.

26:19 - Johan Philippine

They just wanted people to share and to comply with the license, but there's kind of a wrench thrown in the works about whether that can persist. What has changed though is what we've talked about where the whole culture around development has drastically shifted towards sharing an open source and doing that as a default. And so, when companies are caught doing this, there are a lot of non-legal repercussions to skirting the letter of the law in order to break the spirit of the law.

26:49 - Josh Berkus

Once upon a time license enforcement was a bigger part of the world of open source. And even now, it's less important than it was because fewer organizations are interested in violating a license because even if there is not legal enforcement against them, there is often a backlash in other ways, a backlash in social media, a backlash that hurts their PR, a backlash that hurts their ability to hire people. And as a result, the sort of legal enforcement angle of open source is less of a concern than it would've been like 15 years ago.

27:25 - Johan Philippine

But now, when companies are caught red-handed, there's all these other ways in which they get punished for it basically.

27:32 - Brent Simoneaux

And it seems like that can have a big effect on the company's or the person's reputation.

27:40 - Johan Philippine

Yeah, because another thing that's possible with open source is if a project changes their license or they abuse the license or they do something that flies in the face of the open source community and its values, people have the ability to kind of vote with their keyboards, I guess. If someone is doing something that they're not okay with, they can easily find another project that will do something very similar.

28:07 - Brent Simoneaux

I want to return us to our question: Do we still need strong copyleft licenses? Johan, I want to know what's going on in your head. Having talked to Josh and Heather, what is going on in your head now?

28:24 - Johan Philippine

Oh, so many things. It's complicated and it's a tough question to answer. Going back just a little bit, when we were talking about the proliferation of licenses, there is also this debate raging about which kind of license is better, permissive versus copyleft. Which one would be better for the free and open source movement? And what I don't want to get is back into that kind of debate, because it seems as though we've largely moved beyond that.

But on the other hand, it seems as though permissive licenses are becoming more popular and I think we'd be remiss not to recognize the importance of copyleft licenses in getting us to this cultural point in terms of forcing companies to comply and to keep sharing their additions to open source projects. And so, it's a really tough way to look at it, because we want to make sure that that culture continues to be open, but also, we don't want to editorialize and say, "Well, this one is better than the other one." We just want to... You know what I mean?

29:31 - Brent Simoneaux

Yeah. That is what is, I think, largely good for everyone.

29:35 - Angela Andrews

And with the licenses that are out here and available now, it gives you a choice, so you can arm yourself properly when you put a project out there. I think it empowers the person who's putting the code out there. I think that's a really good idea because sometimes we just put stuff out there and we don't think about the consequences. This arms us and this gives us power. This allows us to protect ourselves and also keeps up with the... What's the word I'm looking for? There's a term that people use and they use it in Red Hat, like the culture of open source.

30:12 - Johan Philippine

The open source way?

30:12 - Angela Andrews

Right. You're still being open, but you're just setting those guardrails, protecting yourself, protecting the end user. I mean, that's a win-win. We all want to protect ourselves especially if we're dealing with something so ephemeral.

30:29 - Brent Simoneaux

But I think at the end of the day, this is really about what we value, what we value for ourselves, what we value for the people around us and what we value for our industry. And just like you were saying, Angela, it really is about choice. It's about having the choices available to you to enact what you value in the world.

30:59 - Angela Andrews

Exactly. We want our listeners to take that and run with it. The Compiler theme song is licensed under the Creative Common license. That means we want our listeners to remix our song, so I want you to flex on it. I want you to jazz it up. We would love to hear what you come up with because that's what open source is all about. And the best part about it is we're going to take some of those and play them in a future episode, so let's see what you got, okay?

31:28 - Brent Simoneaux

All right. We are going to put some instructions down in the show notes so go check that out. You can also go to redhat.com/compilerpodcast to learn more.

31:38 - Angela Andrews

All right. I can't wait.

31:40 - Brent Simoneaux

Me too.

31:45 - Angela Andrews

And that does it for this episode of Compiler.

31:49 - Brent Simoneaux

Today's episode was produced by Johan Philippine and Caroline Creaghead. Victoria Lawton compels us to share everything all the time.

31:59 - Angela Andrews

Our audio engineer is Kristie Chan. Special thanks to Shawn Cole. Our theme song was composed by Mary Ancheta.

32:08 - Brent Simoneaux

Huge thank you to our guests, Heather Meeker and Josh Berkus. We also want to thank Jeffrey Kaufman and Richard Fontana for helping us get the legal details of this episode right. We are not experts and they are, so thank you very much.

32:25 - Angela Andrews

Our audio team includes Leigh Day, Laura Barnes, Claire Allison, Nick Burns, Aaron Williamson, Karen King, Boo Boo Howse, Rachel Ertel, Mike Compton, Ocean Matthews, and Laura Walters.

32:39 - Brent Simoneaux

If you like today's episode, please follow the show. The best way to help us out is to rate the show, leave us a review or share it with someone you know.

32:49 - Angela Andrews

Take care, everyone. See you soon.

32:51 - Brent Simoneaux

All right, goodbye.

 

Compiler

Featured guests

Heather Meeker

Josh Berkus

We were so excited about our episode on licenses—so we have a special project that we want to share. Our Compiler theme song is now under a Creative Commons license. Add your own special touch to our theme. Remixes have the chance to be featured on a future episode.

Keep Listening

Red Hat logo LinkedInYouTubeFacebookTwitter

Produits

Outils

Essayer, acheter et vendre

Communication

À propos de Red Hat

Premier éditeur mondial de solutions Open Source pour les entreprises, nous fournissons des technologies Linux, cloud, de conteneurs et Kubernetes. Nous proposons des solutions stables qui aident les entreprises à jongler avec les divers environnements et plateformes, du cœur du datacenter à la périphérie du réseau.

Inscrivez-vous à la newsletter Red Hat Shares.

S'inscrire maintenant

Sélectionner une langue

© 2022 Red Hat, Inc.