Nobody needs yet another linux distro. People want free RHEL.
> Anyone is allowed to create an account, get GPL'ed code and redistribute that code as much as they want according to the license. But they don't actually want the code because as I've said over and over, its not about the code (Free as in freedom). The code is out there (as proven by the fact that none of these rebuilders stopped nor will they stop)
[1]: https://teddit.net/r/linux/comments/14l2t86/im_done_with_red...
It's clear that all the misinformation about RHEL, misinterpretations of the GPL, et al. are not actually about those issues. There is a concerted effort to attack Red Hat.
Become familiar with the "Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation" [2] and you will see them everywhere.
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20221215015113/https://pastebin....
Red Hat is the one who put it behind a wall to begin with. You reap what you sow.
When you buy RHEL, you even get the entire source code on a DVD for the exact binary distribution that you download.
Really weird for you to be grandstanding about how misinformation is bad, while spreading it yourself.
[1]: https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream
Additional docs: https://docs.centos.org/en-US/stream-contrib/techinfo/builds...
> CentOS Stream will now be the sole repository for public RHEL-related source code releases.
RHEL is in there somewhere, even if a user has to pick specific commits for it.
Furthermore, for the totally-bundled source for the exact binary RHEL release (which Red Hat only is required by the GPL to give to their customers, whom they already gave a binary to):
> For Red Hat customers and partners, source code will remain available via the Red Hat Customer Portal.
[1]: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-s...
This is not true. There are Red Hat package versions that do not correspond to any commits in that repository. For example, if a package gets updated from 1.1.0 to 1.2.0 in CentOS Stream, then later a patch is released (lets say, 1.1.1, or 1.1.0-2) then that patch will never show up in this repository. In such a situation, the 1.2 version will probably get an equivalent patch eventually, but not the 1.1 version.
Others have pointed out that embargoed security patches are not pushed to CentOS Stream until the embargo ends, and often at the end of the embargo they still don't push it until several weeks later, due to RH developers forgetting to do so.
I'm not claiming. I am linking to relevant sources directly from Red Hat staff. That is an authoritative source.
> that everyone
No, not everyone, I never said that, and you misrepresenting what I said and distracting from the main issue.
But now that you've gotten to the point of having your own opinion and take: what is "the main issue" as you've mentioned here?
Which, of course, is untrue since Red Hat has stated several times, in the links I've posted above, that Red Hat are (a) STILL providing complete corresponding source code, which one will still receive when they are distributed a binary by Red Hat, and (b) FULLY complying with the terms of GPL and other FLOSS licenses.
These are the two issues that people are misrepresenting, by saying either that Red Hat is (a) locking-down or otherwise disallowing access to complete corresponding source for binary recipients, which is untrue, or (b) that Red Hat is not complying with the FLOSS licenses their software are used under, which is also not true.
The next issue that is raised, one that was mentioned by the Software Freedom Conservancy [1], is that Red Hat is somehow extorting their customers by either making them choose between exercising their GPL rights, or continuing to receive support.
[1]: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis...
Red Hat is free to terminate support with any of their customers--that is not a GPL issue. The transaction the GPL covers is: Red Hat gives (or sells) the user a binary, the user can request the complete corresponding source code (not need to be immediately provided with), and once requested then Red Hat must provide that code. That is the end of the transaction. The GPL does not cover any additional period, or force Red Hat to continue business with a particular user.
What exactly is the spirit of copyleft? I see this said a number of times, but it doesn't appear to be fully articulated.
Personally I consider GPL an _implementation_ of copyleft rather than copyleft itself.
> Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.
> Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
The problem is that, as a downstream customer of that software, RH threatens to terminate my business contract with them if I exercise my own freedom to redistribute that software. It's completely in bad faith.
> With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. Or several users can join together, split the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software. A high CD-ROM price is not a major obstacle when the software is free.
And so all these arguments, once all the misinformation is expelled, eventually boil down to this "it's in bad faith" schtick. Well, what is the faith of Rocky Linux when they are purveying a bug-for-bug clone of RHEL, selling support contracts on top of that, and directly competing with Red Hat's business?
Trick question, because "faith" doesn't matter. It's all legal, and these are businesses. They are making business decisions. If one thinks that some corporation--any corporation--owes "faith" or loyalty to their customers, then I got a bridge to sell you.
You're free to hate Red Hat--no one is forcing anyone to _like_ them--but I hope you have some substance somewhere within, and can articulate why.
If you don't think it is well past time to start forcing ethical behaviour on corporations... I don't know what to say to you.
I notice a certain country is fast tracking them to have human rights, like civic voting, but nothing at all about joining in responsible stewardship for our world.
In short, I've heard of people being generally annoyed by the change, which may be fair. I haven't heard too many people seriously trying to make the claim that what Red Hat is doing is illegal.
I guess the there is money that can be extracted from customers for formal business agreements, because the companies that themselves have contractual relationships with their own customers, care about having paperwork intact; similarly with insurance or compliance contracts. At the same time, this is a squeeze play against at least two downstream distros, Alma and Rocky.
So the attack is not complete, nor all in one place. I am interested to hear if this is accurate, from others with more skin in the game.
RHEL isn’t a project. It’s a product. All the actual work is still happening + being released (albeit less conveniently & not as timely). If Red Hat comes up with a fantastic new feature in RHEL the source will still be released - but it’s up to others to reassemble it. That’s hardly a concerted attack on open source. It’s a jab at copycats.
So in the RedHat so-called "copycat" case, the immediate downstream fill an important role in getting to the fourth+ layer.. there are more informal, unexpected, temporary or otherwise oddball cases than anyone can imagine. So in a growing and evolving network, the full, paid product from the original brand name source is aided and abetted by these immediate downstream distros. Thats not the same as simply counterfeit on black markets. Neither is it low effort, since these two distros Alma and Rocky, show long-term commitment and good skill levels. Those are valuable growth themselves.
What this squeezeplay on the copycats does is remove growth at the edges for lots of people, and consolidate revenue in the center, at RedHat. This is common knowledge among MBAs, and they do it all the time.
Not really, RedHat started this. They're in the enshittening phase now. Management has run out of ideas for real growth, so they are instead squeezing the customer base.