IanJun 27, 2023
Liam @ GamingOnLinux šŸ§šŸŽ®

Re: RHEL CentOS git changes. They now make it clear their recent changes were to stop others repackaging into other distributions.

I do *get* what theyā€™re trying to say. Simply allowing others super easy access to repack doesnā€™t make business sense for them.

However those two paragraphā€™s donā€™t help how they look and directly contradict each otherā€¦.

Literally goes from ā€Donā€™t build from us you freeloadersā€ To ā€œBuilding from others is what open source is all aboutā€.

https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-source-response-gitcentosorg-changes

Red Hatā€™s commitment to open source: A response to the git.centos.org changes

More about Red Hat's decision to make CentOS Stream the primary repository for RHEL sources.

Jun 26, 2023 at 8:25pmIvory for iOS
Show threadLiam @ GamingOnLinux šŸ§šŸŽ®Jun 26, 2023
What theyā€™re doing still isnā€™t ā€œwrongā€ though and doesnā€™t make it ā€œclosed sourceā€ like some clickbaiters have been claiming. They donā€™t have to give it out like they did before. Sucks for downstreams using it but šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø
Show thread@[email protected]Jun 26, 2023
@gamingonlinux as I said in other places though, I've first hand seen Red Hat benefit from a bug found in CentOS.

Red Hat benefits by being a freeloader from all the help they get from the community around Fedora.

This is bullshit and they know it.
Show threadStarkRGJun 26, 2023
@gamingonlinux It certainly seems antithetical to the open source philosophy, so, yeah, I think it actually is wrong. Illegal? No. License violation? No. Ethically wrong? Yes.
Show threadMichele šŸ‘¾ šŸ”­Jun 26, 2023
@gamingonlinux https://mastodon.online/@mmanciop/110612227056525718
Michele šŸ‘¾ šŸ”­ (@[email protected])

While the post is mostly correct and one can agree with most of it, itā€™s very hard to believe that, unless more people pay for RHEL, it would cease to exist. Whatā€™s more believable, is that this is a matter of wanting more money for sales targets. Very legitimate and all, but donā€™t cry over the long hours and donā€™t try to sound like misunderstood heroes. RHEL is valuable, it contributes to the ecosystem well, and execs want it to churn out more cash. https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-source-response-gitcentosorg-changes

Mastodon
Show threadcameronbosch Jun 26, 2023
@gamingonlinux Actually, for any projects that are GPLv3 (like the GNU coreutils), putting extra restrictions on the source code redistribution violates the GPLv3. Unless they want to separate all of the GPLv3 projects from the other stuff, they will be in violation of the GPLv3.
Show threadDr. Dek šŸ‘Øā€šŸš€šŸ§šŸš€ )Jun 26, 2023

@gamingonlinux
The situation is borderline and some pieces should be tested on a tribunal to know what actually holds. Specifically "ability to redistribute without restrictions"; is the menace of stopping a contract such a restriction? We don't really know.

And of course it gets even more complicated, there is an extensive article that tries to outline the situation better: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/

A Comprehensive Analysis of the GPL Issues With the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Business Model

This article was originally published primarily as a response to IBM's Red Hat's change to no longer publish complete, corresponding source (CCS) for RHEL and the prior discontinuation of CentOS Linux (which are related events, as described below). We hope that this will serve as a comprehensive document that discusses the history of Red Hat's RHEL business model, the related source code provisioning, and the GPL compliance issues with RHEL.

Software Freedom Conservancy
Show threaddoragasuJun 27, 2023
@gamingonlinux IMHO what they are doing might **not** be legal (it's legal putting their sources behind their customer portal, it might not be legal prohibiting GPL sources redistribution since that puts an additional restriction to the GPL terms, and the GPL explicitly prohibits that). But what they are doing **is** wrong on many levels, and I think it will be bad for their business in the long run.
Show threadAlexJun 27, 2023

@gamingonlinux it's wrong when you're a company with a 25 year legacy built on top of open source principles and you're just trying to get rid of it for the money.

it's like Valve saying that they will move the Deck to Windows and will completely stop supporting Linux because 99% of the Linux users on Steam are freeloaders.

Show threadTheriacJun 27, 2023
@xinayder @gamingonlinux
tbh Valve would do that if they thought it would benefit them more. Proton is a typical example of a company making proprietory software from free software.
Show threadAlexJun 27, 2023

@Theriac @gamingonlinux I don't think so, or that's not the case. They saw potential in exploring Linux gaming and they decided to go with it. They know it's a rocky path and it won't be as profitable as Windows, but they still did it.

I believe that Valve is one of the few remaining companies that are owned by enthusiasts of the things they produce. Gabe is a gamer, Valve is a company for gamers, by gamers.

Show threadTheriacJun 27, 2023
@xinayder @gamingonlinux
It's definitely so or they would have just endorsed Wine.

Valve's motives for supporting Linux is and has always been less about philanthropy and everything about Valve profiting.
Show threadDr. Dek šŸ‘Øā€šŸš€šŸ§šŸš€ )Jun 26, 2023
@gamingonlinux
They wrote that open source is all about competition. I disagree. I think the nature of open source is all about collaboration.
Show threadXerz šŸ’—Jun 26, 2023
@gamingonlinux simple: they want to make business with free code from the community, but they don't want to be treated the same way

well ok
Show threadcameronbosch Jun 26, 2023
@xerz @gamingonlinux F**king hypocrites they are. You can't have it both ways Red Hat!
Show threadJan ā˜•šŸŽ¼šŸŽ¹ā˜ļøšŸ‹ļøā€ā™‚ļøJun 26, 2023
@gamingonlinux
There is a massive difference to building on others (ergo adding value/ideas) and just rebuilding verbatim. I believe that is what they are trying to convey.
Show threadLiam @ GamingOnLinux šŸ§šŸŽ®Jun 26, 2023

@jan Yes there is and I somewhat agree on simply rebadging. However, that is also largely part of the open source community and what licensing allows so again šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø

Often these downstreams are to simply get around paying licensing for support costs to get it free. So in a way, yeah these downstreams do become total freeloaders. And entirely depending on someone elseā€™s work is such a bad business model to begin with.

Show threadJan ā˜•šŸŽ¼šŸŽ¹ā˜ļøšŸ‹ļøā€ā™‚ļøJun 27, 2023

@gamingonlinux
What really does rub me the wrong way is all the corporate entities that I know which depend on centos (back in the day), make a crapton of profit, yet refuse to buy a support license, give anything back to FOSS,... they just take, contributing nothing back.

Those should be weeded out.

Show threadAlexJun 27, 2023

@gamingonlinux @jan

well, this can either be a response to Oracle Linux literally just taking RHEL downstream and repackaging it and reselling, or a response to NASA actually signing a contract with RockyLinux.

either way, they should come up with a way to limit corporate freeloading instead. they are annoyed that Oracle is using it without paying? restrict Oracle, not everyone else.

Show threadteyJun 26, 2023
@gamingonlinux I'm rather reading it as simply building our sources = freeloading = not okay, vs building upon upstream = improving and contributing back = okay. Certainly could have phrased that better and avoided the overload of the term 'building' there, but their argument makes sense to me.
Show threadRobin Edser Jun 26, 2023

@gamingonlinux they don't contradict to me if taken in the context of the whole blog post.

The first is referring to simply repackaging and rebranding a project then presenting it as your own. In other words what all this fuss is about.

The second refers to the relationship between RedHat and Fedora, or Ubuntu and Debian. Building on, improving and contributing back.

Show threadLiam @ GamingOnLinux šŸ§šŸŽ®Jun 26, 2023

@fossrob but if the code is open source and the licensing allows it, repackaging and reusing is all in the entire spirit of open source

Creating a fight between upstreamd and downstreams is not going to help anyone.

Show threadLiam @ GamingOnLinux šŸ§šŸŽ®Jun 26, 2023
@fossrob But as said elsewhere by me: theyā€™re not actually doing anything wrong with their changes
Show threadRobin Edser Jun 26, 2023
@gamingonlinux well yes. It would be great if none of this were necessary though and RHEL was simply available for free (with optional paid support like Ubuntu). But let's be honest, Ubuntu is only in recent years finally starting to be profitable after more than a decade running at a loss. Would they have made it this long without a billionaire benefactor all those years? šŸ¤· I'd rather Red Hat remain a successful business and continue to do the good it does.
Show threadā˜ƒļøkarolherbstā˜ƒļøJun 26, 2023

@fossrob @gamingonlinux yeah.. It think this is a big part of what was missing in the discussion around that topic. Does it suck what RH did here? Most certainly, but most of Open Source are not sustainable. A lot of projects are maintained by people doing it in their spare time besides their "real job".

What if they burn out? What if they just disappear? We finally have to have the discussion on: what is all that worth to us and companies stop treating it as something they can get for free.

Show threadRobin Edser Jun 26, 2023

@gamingonlinux well, the nuance (to me at least) is that just "repackaging and reusing" as is, *in it's entirety without adding any value* is not in the spirit of or healthy for open source.

And in this case sadly, a lot of the RHEL clone distributions do it purely for profit. Is anyone criticizing this because they feel sorry for Oracle Linux?

Show threadApril Jun 26, 2023
@fossrob @gamingonlinux I mean, there is still value in having an option available for individuals to test software on RHEL without the licensing issues of RHEL. And then if someone finds a bug in Rocky or Alma (both of which cost nothing), there's every opportunity for those products to submit patches or at least bug reports upstream. That's the whole point of it being bug compatible with RHEL.
Show threadRobin Edser Jun 26, 2023

@lep232 @gamingonlinux agree it would be a lot more convenient for individuals and developers to just not have to have to register to use RHEL even if it's free to do so.

But also you are referring to RHEL the OS, the binaries, the actual software, that hasn't been freely available since 2002 and a lot of open source businesses work like that. I do think that the free developer subscription, free RHEL for open source projects and free ubi container image are a fair compromise though.

Show threaduzayranJun 26, 2023
@gamingonlinux
I always thought Red Hat's selling point was the support you get when you buy the RHEL license. Getting prospectice customers used to the ecosystem by publishing CentOS for free, and then selling them support with RHEL seemed like a sensible approach to me. But I guess IBM does not see it that way.
Show threadAman Das  Jun 26, 2023
@gamingonlinux I think the blog is fair. I'd rather Red-Hat continues to work upstream than there be more RHEL clones.
Show threadOrbitalMartianJun 26, 2023
@gamingonlinux I swear that's the whole point of open source, to be able to fork and build upon something to make it better, and to collaborate.
Show threadRobin Edser Jun 26, 2023

@LinuxGamer @gamingonlinux which anyone can still do. That's what the original individual projects upstream + Fedora + CentOS Stream are for.

You couldn't ever collaborate on and contribute to RHEL before either (and in fact now you actually can via CentOS Stream). If you want to fork and build upon Anaconda, or virt-manager or some other RH project you can. You don't need to clone the entire OS to do that.

Show threadJaime HerazoJun 26, 2023

@gamingonlinux

Turning Free Software into a walled garden in the name of the Almighty Profit should be grounds from shunning them from fucking everywhere, they're no longer to be trusted with it

Show threadSFaulkenJun 26, 2023
@gamingonlinux *shrug* I don't have any particular objection to what RedHat is choosing to do here. Frankly I'm surprised it's taken this long.
Show threadjeffeb3Jun 26, 2023
@gamingonlinux We paid for RHEL simply because we needed something we could _buy_. The corporation I worked for couldn't agree to any terms unless they bought something. The repos were not the key feature.
Show threadBen ReavesJun 26, 2023

@gamingonlinux all I hear is ā€œWeā€™re happy to take your efforts & roll them into our project. Oh you want our changes too? We canā€™t have that & our paying customers donā€™t want it either because the question eventually becomes why are we paying for this?ā€.

When you know quality of the software is so good that itā€™s difficult to build a billable support business model on top of it. They arenā€™t afraid of hobbyists, they afraid of professionals that arenā€™t them.

Show threadTaffer šŸ‡ØšŸ‡¦Jun 27, 2023

@gamingonlinux I assume this is some enshittification by IBM geniuses, and that itā€™s going to spill over into Fedora, which I was going to try on my next system.

Going to try OpenSUSE instead I guess.

Show threadxXxSharkPuncher360xXxJun 27, 2023
@gamingonlinux
Furthermore, RedHat has made themselves the arbiter of what constitutes 'value.' That's not how it works. Clearly the community sees plenty of value in RHEL clones. How many of them will now 'fall in line' and become paying RHEL users?