5 ms·

Prior to the RedHat "acquisition" how was CentOS getting RHEL source? How would the "Rocky Linux" CentOS fork go about doing the same thing? I've heard time an

Prior to the RedHat "acquisition" how was CentOS getting RHEL source? How would the "Rocky Linux" CentOS fork go about doing the same thing? I've heard time and again that RedHat will terminate a subscriber's contract if the subscriber is caught distributing RHEL source or binaries to discourage further distribution. Detecting such redistribution seems difficult to me, but setting that aside and assuming it's true, how does a project like CentOS or Rocky Linux get RHEL sources in a sustainable manner?

Jasper_ 6y ago
Red Hat ships source publicly, but not binaries. http://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/8Base/en/RHOS/SRPMS/ http://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/8Base/en/RHOS/...
- mastre_ 6y ago
  Is there anything to stop RH from not continuing to make these publicly available, since their intent is to stop the exact itch CentOS scratched?
  - rnd0 6y ago
    There's nothing to stop them, no. But that wouldn't change that they have to make the sources available to their customers -and it takes one customer to get the source and provide it for a fork.
    - EvanAnderson 6y ago
      But if getting caught making further distribution of RHEL causes a Customer to lose their support contract then the Customers would be unlikely to do so.
      - benlivengood 6y ago
        One could hypothetically buy an unwanted cheap support contract to get access to the source.
    - mastre_ 6y ago
      I guess what I am trying to say is that perhaps it's an inherently flawed model as evidenced but what just happened and, going forward, we should rid ourselves of such ties. At the end of the day, we're talking about a super stable server distro with LTS. While many things are easier said than done, I believe this is important enough to the community that it could happen. My main concern with such a distro is security, a team developers providing security patches would be the most critical part of such an entity. Hopefully before CentOS 7 goes dark in 2024 there will be viable alternatives. Right now, having to compile against custom libs not shipped with the distro (for example, modern OpenSSL) is a small price to pay for having another 3 years left to decide on best course of action to get off CentOS. Still, it's a terrible position to be in for those who upgraded to CentOS 8 already (as we were just about to do).
- EvanAnderson 6y ago
  That answers my question. I had no idea RedHat freely distributed the source to non-subscribers. Of course, they are under no obligation to distribute that to the public.
  - jlawer 6y ago
    No, but since they have no cost trial and developer options, its basically easier then managing who gets access to what, as anyone who gets those no cost versions are entitled to the source for those packages.
- mroche 6y ago
  RHOS is OpenStack. The only two ways two get RHEL 8 sources are from your account’s download page (very tedious) or to use the *-source-rpms repos (reposync/manually) that are available with your subscription.
johnnyfaehell 6y ago
GPL is copyleft, they're mainly doing additions and modifications to code that is GPL. They have to publish their code. I believe they try to be sneaky and hide how they add it but it's all open source.
- GekkePrutser 6y ago
  But some of the tools would have been written from scratch, this is where it'll get tricky. No obligations there. I also heard they obfuscated some code and removed comments to make things more difficult, before the RedHat acquisition of CentOS.
- CorrectHorseBat 6y ago
  They only have to publish the code to their customers, not to anyone else. Terminating a contract when a customer redistributes the code seems to be a violation of the GPL to me, but I'm not a lawyer.
  - EvanAnderson 6y ago
    The support contract between RedHat and the subscriber isn't anything to do with the GPL. That's a separate document. They could terminate your support if you buy a red car. They can't stop you from buying a red car (distributing the source to RHEL) but they can terminate your support and perform no further distribution of GPL'd software to you.
    - jlawer 6y ago
      Terminating support contracts for using your rights could easily run afoul of other laws in different regions as anti-competition. It only takes 1 region to take this approach and the code is out.
    - mr_toad 6y ago
      Making a support contract dependent on restrictions on distribution sounds a lot like imposing additional conditions on the GPL, just with extra steps.

Jasper_ 6y ago

Red Hat ships source publicly, but not binaries. http://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/8Base/en/RHOS/SRPMS/ http://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/8Base/en/RHOS/...

mastre_ 6y ago
Is there anything to stop RH from not continuing to make these publicly available, since their intent is to stop the exact itch CentOS scratched?
- rnd0 6y ago
  There's nothing to stop them, no. But that wouldn't change that they have to make the sources available to their customers -and it takes one customer to get the source and provide it for a fork.
  - EvanAnderson 6y ago
    But if getting caught making further distribution of RHEL causes a Customer to lose their support contract then the Customers would be unlikely to do so.
    - benlivengood 6y ago
      One could hypothetically buy an unwanted cheap support contract to get access to the source.
  - mastre_ 6y ago
    I guess what I am trying to say is that perhaps it's an inherently flawed model as evidenced but what just happened and, going forward, we should rid ourselves of such ties. At the end of the day, we're talking about a super stable server distro with LTS. While many things are easier said than done, I believe this is important enough to the community that it could happen. My main concern with such a distro is security, a team developers providing security patches would be the most critical part of such an entity. Hopefully before CentOS 7 goes dark in 2024 there will be viable alternatives. Right now, having to compile against custom libs not shipped with the distro (for example, modern OpenSSL) is a small price to pay for having another 3 years left to decide on best course of action to get off CentOS. Still, it's a terrible position to be in for those who upgraded to CentOS 8 already (as we were just about to do).
EvanAnderson 6y ago
That answers my question. I had no idea RedHat freely distributed the source to non-subscribers. Of course, they are under no obligation to distribute that to the public.
- jlawer 6y ago
  No, but since they have no cost trial and developer options, its basically easier then managing who gets access to what, as anyone who gets those no cost versions are entitled to the source for those packages.
mroche 6y ago
RHOS is OpenStack. The only two ways two get RHEL 8 sources are from your account’s download page (very tedious) or to use the *-source-rpms repos (reposync/manually) that are available with your subscription.

johnnyfaehell 6y ago

GPL is copyleft, they're mainly doing additions and modifications to code that is GPL. They have to publish their code. I believe they try to be sneaky and hide how they add it but it's all open source.

GekkePrutser 6y ago
But some of the tools would have been written from scratch, this is where it'll get tricky. No obligations there. I also heard they obfuscated some code and removed comments to make things more difficult, before the RedHat acquisition of CentOS.
CorrectHorseBat 6y ago
They only have to publish the code to their customers, not to anyone else. Terminating a contract when a customer redistributes the code seems to be a violation of the GPL to me, but I'm not a lawyer.
- EvanAnderson 6y ago
  The support contract between RedHat and the subscriber isn't anything to do with the GPL. That's a separate document. They could terminate your support if you buy a red car. They can't stop you from buying a red car (distributing the source to RHEL) but they can terminate your support and perform no further distribution of GPL'd software to you.
  - jlawer 6y ago
    Terminating support contracts for using your rights could easily run afoul of other laws in different regions as anti-competition. It only takes 1 region to take this approach and the code is out.
  - mr_toad 6y ago
    Making a support contract dependent on restrictions on distribution sounds a lot like imposing additional conditions on the GPL, just with extra steps.