4 ms·

I'm curious why the same argument wouldn't apply to Red Hat Enterprise Linux and all its customers, since they apply the same policy of terminating the license

by makomk 9y ago

I'm curious why the same argument wouldn't apply to Red Hat Enterprise Linux and all its customers, since they apply the same policy of terminating the license of anyone who redistributes it to their kernel patch set.

SwellJoe 9y ago
That's not accurate. Everything Red Hat does is OSS. Their kernel patches are developed in the open, and available to anyone. The only thing they restrict is binary distribution.
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
  To belabor the point, it is my understanding that CentOS is literally identical to RHEL minus a couple identifiers (/etc/issue and the like) and a license with a support contract. You can even convert it into RHEL by buying a license and installing a couple packages.
  - makomk 9y ago
    CentOS can ship a system that's effectively identical to RHEL because Red Had publish their patched kernel source. What they don't distribute publicly and is only available to customers, under penalty of contract termination if they release it, is the patches that make up their kernel. So non-customers can't easily tell what they've changed, back out patches that break stuff, or cherry-pick patches for non-RHEL use. This is obviously nicer than the gresecuriy approach but there's no obvious reason why it's any more legal.
    - protomyth 9y ago
      If what you say is true, and I have no doubts you are correct, then how is Red Hat's kernel policy different from Grsecurity? They both alter the kernel and contractually bind the recipient not to distribute the source on pain of contract termination. I'm not asserting bad / good. I'm would like to know the difference.
      - mkl 9y ago
        If I understand it correctly, you can distribute Red Hat's source all you want, but it's up to you to figure out which bits of the kernel that is. That extra information is not part of the code.
        sigjuice 9y ago
        What is the "extra information" in this context?
        mkl 9y ago
        The patch metadata: which lines have changed for what purpose.
        sigjuice 9y ago
        Sorry, I am still not sure what you mean. Could you point me at an example of 'patch metadata'? Thanks!
        sanxiyn 9y ago
        Here is an example of patch metadata, in this case for Debian: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/kernel/linux.git/tree/debian/patches/series https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/kernel/linux.git/tree/debian... "Without patch metadata" would be a single file patch.
        sigjuice 9y ago
        Thanks! A CentOS 6 kernel source rpm that I unpacked recently had multiple patch files in it.
      - SwellJoe 9y ago
        "They both alter the kernel and contractually bind the recipient not to distribute the source on pain of contract termination." Red Hat does not contractually bind anyone to not distribute source. They just don't. They distribute the source themselves, without contract or cost. And, Red Hat employs several of the largest contributors to the mainline Linux kernel. Most of the time, if something is in the RHEL kernel, there are people working on pushing it into the mainline kernel either before or after it goes into the RHEL kernel. Red Hat has consistently and for decades worked with the Linux community to build a better kernel. I'm not trying to be a Red Hat fanatic or anything, but they've been trotted out multiple times in this thread as being "just like grsecurity", and it's just flabbergastingly wrong to compare the two.
    - SwellJoe 9y ago
      "but there's no obvious reason why it's any more legal." I don't follow this logic. Red Hat distributes the entire source of the kernels they ship, in a form that anyone can use, change, and redistribute. That satisfies the legal definition and the spirit of the GPL. They do not prohibit their paying customers from enjoying any of the rights guaranteed by the GPL. grsecurity allegedly prohibits people from doing that.
    - ensignavenger 9y ago
      What is the difference between "patched kernel source" and the "patches that make up their kernel"? It sounds like maybe you are saying that they just provide the source from release to release, not the Git (or similar) history with each commit they make. But since they release the source of each release, it sounds like that satisfies the GPL, and giving customers Git history or equivalent is an additional perk.
cyphar 9y ago
This is simply a falsehood. Both SUSE and RHEL provide the corresponding sources for all of their free software packages (regardless of the license) through source RPMs (which were actually created specifically for this purpose). I gave a longer rant about this in a separate thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14733131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14733131

by makomk 9y ago

SwellJoe 9y ago

That's not accurate. Everything Red Hat does is OSS. Their kernel patches are developed in the open, and available to anyone. The only thing they restrict is binary distribution.

yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
To belabor the point, it is my understanding that CentOS is literally identical to RHEL minus a couple identifiers (/etc/issue and the like) and a license with a support contract. You can even convert it into RHEL by buying a license and installing a couple packages.
- makomk 9y ago
  CentOS can ship a system that's effectively identical to RHEL because Red Had publish their patched kernel source. What they don't distribute publicly and is only available to customers, under penalty of contract termination if they release it, is the patches that make up their kernel. So non-customers can't easily tell what they've changed, back out patches that break stuff, or cherry-pick patches for non-RHEL use. This is obviously nicer than the gresecuriy approach but there's no obvious reason why it's any more legal.
  - protomyth 9y ago
    If what you say is true, and I have no doubts you are correct, then how is Red Hat's kernel policy different from Grsecurity? They both alter the kernel and contractually bind the recipient not to distribute the source on pain of contract termination. I'm not asserting bad / good. I'm would like to know the difference.
    - mkl 9y ago
      If I understand it correctly, you can distribute Red Hat's source all you want, but it's up to you to figure out which bits of the kernel that is. That extra information is not part of the code.
      - sigjuice 9y ago
        What is the "extra information" in this context?
        mkl 9y ago
        The patch metadata: which lines have changed for what purpose.
        sigjuice 9y ago
        Sorry, I am still not sure what you mean. Could you point me at an example of 'patch metadata'? Thanks!
        sanxiyn 9y ago
        Here is an example of patch metadata, in this case for Debian: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/kernel/linux.git/tree/debian/patches/series https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/kernel/linux.git/tree/debian... "Without patch metadata" would be a single file patch.
        sigjuice 9y ago
        Thanks! A CentOS 6 kernel source rpm that I unpacked recently had multiple patch files in it.
    - SwellJoe 9y ago
      "They both alter the kernel and contractually bind the recipient not to distribute the source on pain of contract termination." Red Hat does not contractually bind anyone to not distribute source. They just don't. They distribute the source themselves, without contract or cost. And, Red Hat employs several of the largest contributors to the mainline Linux kernel. Most of the time, if something is in the RHEL kernel, there are people working on pushing it into the mainline kernel either before or after it goes into the RHEL kernel. Red Hat has consistently and for decades worked with the Linux community to build a better kernel. I'm not trying to be a Red Hat fanatic or anything, but they've been trotted out multiple times in this thread as being "just like grsecurity", and it's just flabbergastingly wrong to compare the two.
  - SwellJoe 9y ago
    "but there's no obvious reason why it's any more legal." I don't follow this logic. Red Hat distributes the entire source of the kernels they ship, in a form that anyone can use, change, and redistribute. That satisfies the legal definition and the spirit of the GPL. They do not prohibit their paying customers from enjoying any of the rights guaranteed by the GPL. grsecurity allegedly prohibits people from doing that.
  - ensignavenger 9y ago
    What is the difference between "patched kernel source" and the "patches that make up their kernel"? It sounds like maybe you are saying that they just provide the source from release to release, not the Git (or similar) history with each commit they make. But since they release the source of each release, it sounds like that satisfies the GPL, and giving customers Git history or equivalent is an additional perk.

cyphar 9y ago

This is simply a falsehood. Both SUSE and RHEL provide the corresponding sources for all of their free software packages (regardless of the license) through source RPMs (which were actually created specifically for this purpose). I gave a longer rant about this in a separate thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14733131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14733131