In Fedora, we don't "support" third-party packages or installation of software because we can't do much about it if something is wrong. You should go to the provider of the software for help.
But we certainly support your _ability_ to install and run whatever you want. It's your computer, and it's your OS.
Regardless of the party line, in practice there's no big distinction between not caring if it works or not and not allowing it. The difference only matters for highly technical people with lots of time on their hands. For everyone else, if it's not a paved road it's not a road they can travel on at all, and so in practice Linux historically did not "support" third party software in any meaningful way.
And although I was making that argument to Fedora decades ago, it's only recently that this point has been accepted with official support by Red Hat for stuff like Flatpak. Of course other distros developed their own thing as always so it's still not really ideal. But at least the principle was now accepted that third party apps should have a properly supported way to thrive. Far too late, but it's done.
It's not necessarily about being "one program". It's this part:
"The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities."
I get that it's really hard to make money as an open source company. (That's why I am one of your paying customers.)
The exclusion you are putting on your SDK seems very similar to that of the "bitkeeper" version control software used for the Linux kernel for a short time. Look how that turned out.
GPL licenses have allowed so-called "mere aggregation", where separate programs are distributed together. Such programs don't have to be all covered by GPL.
On the other hand, if parts are intimately tied to each other such that they are effectively a single program, GPL applies to the whole.
The FSF commentary explains that the judgment depends both on the mechanisms and the semantics of the co-operation. Technical implementation details don't make programs separate if they are intimately designed to work together: "But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program."
So they either have to license their SDK with a GPLv3 compatible license as well, or have to change the license of the client to a non-GPL one.
In the latter case, IIUC their CLA (https://cla-assistant.io/bitwarden/clients) allows to do change the license unilaterally. (Not a legal expert, so please correct me if I am wrong.)
If so, then I feel strengthened again in my conviction that permissive licenses (as well as closed-source licenses) and CLAs are bad for both users and developers and should be avoided, if possible.
ChatGPT, for all its amazingness, _never_ follows instructions. It just appears to, as it generates likely text. This is incredibly important to understand — it isn't a generalized AI.
Larger and more sophisticated models will do the party trick more convincingly... but actually following instructions will require a different approach.
The other thing that I would really like to see is at least an option for deterministic responses. I like the creativity of ChatGPT constantly giving different responses but it is hugely problematic when you are trying to iterate and it keeps completely changing the thing you are iterating on.
LLMs are a drunk guy at a party. A context machine, or a really good spell checker, maybe like a really outgoing, kinda drunk guy at a party. He can just walk right up to any group, hear someone say the words, "...thats why we never go on vacations anymore..." and he will just jump right in, "Me and the wife just got back from a great VACATION, we love going to Cabo, its out favorit vacation spot, last year we went..."
The guy has NO IDEA what the group was actually talking about but it doesn't matter anyway. You can give him more context but all he can do id further tailor his story to try and fit in better with the group discussion.
I think people get confused about what LLMs are doing because you CAN ask the drunk guy questions and he CAN kind of answer, or ask him to do a party trick and he can kinda do it, but all he is doing is continuing the context you give him, he IMMEDIATELY forgets anything you told him so he can't do the same exact thing twice.
RHEL is branched from Stream and released from the branch every 6 months.
I challenge you to find _one_ package in RHEL (as of the git.centos.org c9 branch) that reverted an ABI breakage that is in Stream, without said reversion having been applied to Stream as well.
