But since we aren't entitled to any free product at all, it seems unkind to criticize someone for not giving as much for free as they once did. It's still generous, even if previously it was more so.
Like... sorta? On the other hand, they went on the record saying that they would support CentOS 8 through 2029 [0], so I think it's reasonable to be unhappy with them for going back on that even in the absence of a monetary relationship.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20201101131417/https://wiki.cent...
So while this is disruptive and bound to be upsetting, Red Hat are still being quite generous with their new offerings. And as far as I know, they are not standing in the way of CentOS replacements such as Rocky[0] or Lenix[1].
[0] https://rockylinux.org/ [1] https://www.projectlenix.org/
Once the unfortunate decision was made to shut down CentOS, it would be very nice if the public outrage was tempered with a little appreciation for the 6 years of support that Red Hat gave to it, and also an appreciation for the new options for free access to RHEL they are providing.
People seem awfully entitled in their outrage.
That's the cost of building a product on GPL2 licensed software.
The CentOS project itself wasn't started by Red Hat. It was given to them with the expectation that they would be good stewards of it. In killing its core mission, they haven't been.
EDIT: Clarify sentence.
Are you claiming they are in violation of the GPL license? I believe they still are 100% in compliance.
> The CentOS project itself wasn't started by Red Hat. It was given to them with the expectation that they would be good stewards of it. They haven't.
They stepped in to stewardship of the product quite naturally, with the full backing of the previous stewards. Nobody was forced into that agreement. It wasn't given to them as a gift, Red Hat has sponsored the project for the last 6+ years. The fact that you disagree with the direction it has since gone, does not mean it's wrong. It may be the difference between having something more modest, and having nothing at all.
And if you want something closer to the original CentOS check out:
Which was created by the CentOS founder.
I'm not, they are indeed compliant, and Red Hat is not obligated to directly maintain CentOS. They are only obligated to provide the source to customers under the terms of the GPL.
However, if Red Hat no longer wants to maintain CentOS in the spirit in which it was founded and taken over, I'd argue the ethical thing to do would be to spin the project back out of Red Hat.
>That's the cost of building a product on GPL2 licensed software.
You are only entitled to the GPL code if it is distributed to you (as in you are a customer).