5 ms·

> Aren't they also the only successful free software business in history? Are you sure you meant "open source software" not free software?

by yeukhon 10y ago

Panini_Jones 10y ago
The software is free, is it not? Red Hat's business model is subscription based.
- kbenson 10y ago
  The software is free. CentOS is a testament to that.
- yeukhon 10y ago
  No, I am referring to Stallman's view on free software. See below. Software free to download vs "free software" from a license PoV aren't necessarily the same. Redhat's products are best to describe as open source software. https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html
  - duozerk 10y ago
    Redhat's code is Free software, actually. The page you link simply says they don't follow the free software distribution guidelines (and thus are not endorsed by the FSF/GNU project) because they also allow non-free software in their repos.
  - schoen 10y ago
    A better reference for Stallman's view here is probably https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html, which shows why Red Hat's business is probably reasonably described as a free software business (particularly since "the differences in extension of the category [open source] are small").
  - cyphar 10y ago
    You're incorrect. Red Hat (and SUSE)'s distributions are free-as-in-freedom software (or at the very least, the majority of the distribution is free -- the link you posted is complaining about a very small minority of the software that is part of such distributions [which is a problem but is not as big of a problem as you claim]). The fact that you won't get official updates after a trial period (or if your subscription runs out) isn't against the principles of free software. As a user, you still have the source code and have the freedom to maintain the distribution yourself (nobody does, but the freedom is still there).
dec0dedab0de 10y ago
I don't think it is possible to be Open Source without being Free Software, and vice versa. At least I've never seen it done.
- vacri 10y ago
  Atlassian software is Open Source but not Free Software. You can download it, inspect it, and run it... but you need a paid license to keep it running. The same is true of RHEL, because CentOS is effectively "RHEL without a paid license".
  - bonzini 10y ago
    Both Atlassian's "open core" and RHEL are free software. The difference is that Atlassian sells plenty of proprietary software and add ons too, while the only proprietary software that Red Hat sells comes from recent acquisitions (e.g., Ansible Tower), and it is all in the process of becoming open source. Red Hat has a great track record for open sourcing software from companies that they acquired.
  - milesrout 10y ago
    >You can download it, inspect it, and run it... but you need a paid license to keep it running. Then it is not open source. Open source has a strict definition, from the OSI.
    - Godel_unicode 10y ago
      Why are they the arbiter of what is and isn't open source? That kind of gatekeeping seems contrary to their entire purpose.
      - dredmorbius 10y ago
        Because that is literally the single and only reason for their existence: to define and protect the Open Source Definition. (I'm not sure if it's still a Service Mark or not, though it was at one time.)

> Aren't they also the only successful free software business in history? Are you sure you meant "open source software" not free software?

by yeukhon 10y ago

> Aren't they also the only successful free software business in history? Are you sure you meant "open source software" not free software?

Panini_Jones 10y ago

The software is free, is it not? Red Hat's business model is subscription based.

kbenson 10y ago
The software is free. CentOS is a testament to that.
yeukhon 10y ago
No, I am referring to Stallman's view on free software. See below. Software free to download vs "free software" from a license PoV aren't necessarily the same. Redhat's products are best to describe as open source software. https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html
- duozerk 10y ago
  Redhat's code is Free software, actually. The page you link simply says they don't follow the free software distribution guidelines (and thus are not endorsed by the FSF/GNU project) because they also allow non-free software in their repos.
- schoen 10y ago
  A better reference for Stallman's view here is probably https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html, which shows why Red Hat's business is probably reasonably described as a free software business (particularly since "the differences in extension of the category [open source] are small").
- cyphar 10y ago
  You're incorrect. Red Hat (and SUSE)'s distributions are free-as-in-freedom software (or at the very least, the majority of the distribution is free -- the link you posted is complaining about a very small minority of the software that is part of such distributions [which is a problem but is not as big of a problem as you claim]). The fact that you won't get official updates after a trial period (or if your subscription runs out) isn't against the principles of free software. As a user, you still have the source code and have the freedom to maintain the distribution yourself (nobody does, but the freedom is still there).

dec0dedab0de 10y ago

I don't think it is possible to be Open Source without being Free Software, and vice versa. At least I've never seen it done.

vacri 10y ago
Atlassian software is Open Source but not Free Software. You can download it, inspect it, and run it... but you need a paid license to keep it running. The same is true of RHEL, because CentOS is effectively "RHEL without a paid license".
- bonzini 10y ago
  Both Atlassian's "open core" and RHEL are free software. The difference is that Atlassian sells plenty of proprietary software and add ons too, while the only proprietary software that Red Hat sells comes from recent acquisitions (e.g., Ansible Tower), and it is all in the process of becoming open source. Red Hat has a great track record for open sourcing software from companies that they acquired.
- milesrout 10y ago
  >You can download it, inspect it, and run it... but you need a paid license to keep it running. Then it is not open source. Open source has a strict definition, from the OSI.
  - Godel_unicode 10y ago
    Why are they the arbiter of what is and isn't open source? That kind of gatekeeping seems contrary to their entire purpose.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Because that is literally the single and only reason for their existence: to define and protect the Open Source Definition. (I'm not sure if it's still a Service Mark or not, though it was at one time.)