5 ms·

The ftp site does not contain sources for RHEL 8 (it's just sources for a bunch of add-on packages). The RHEL 8 sources are in git.centos.org, though not in SRP

by em500 6y ago

The ftp site does not contain sources for RHEL 8 (it's just sources for a bunch of add-on packages). The RHEL 8 sources are in git.centos.org, though not in SRPM form. I know that GPL only requires Red Hat to provide sources on request to those receiving their binaries. But in principle the receiver can then legally redistribute those sources. Now AFAICT nobody's actually doing that redistributing. I don't know whether that's due to lack of interest, or due to some Red Had shenanigans that makes redistribution illegal/unattractive.

mbreese 6y ago
RedHat has to permit the redistribution per the GPL. But there is nothing stating that your support contract can’t be cancelled if you do it. (I don’t have any first hand knowledge of this, just a guess).
- bigbubba 6y ago
  Grsecurity also uses this 'loophole.' Seeing this scheme go mainstream is really disheartening; I feel that it really undermines the intent and social value of the GPL.
  - ikiris 6y ago
    It's supposed to be against the GPL, but no one is willing to chase it.
    - dralley 6y ago
      In what way is it "supposed to be against the GPL"?
      - hvdijk 6y ago
        See Bruce Perens's explanation: <https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-c...>. The short story: adding a penalty to an action that the GPL allows is a restriction of that action, and the GPL does not allow setting additional restrictions. This has not been tested in court, as far as I know.
        andi999 6y ago
        In the case of Red Hat it is not a penalty (as far as I understand) but a 'bonus' you can keep your support contract when obliging..
        hvdijk 6y ago
        My understanding is that Red Hat does allow redistribution so long as you do not infringe on its trademarks. Given that no version of the GPL ever granted trademark rights, this is not an additional restriction, so this is fine.
      - coldtea 6y ago
        The same way something like "we can tell you, but then we'll have to kill you" would be against the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act.
type0 6y ago
> I don't know whether that's due to lack of interest, or due to some Red Had shenanigans that makes redistribution illegal/unattractive. Red Hat is overly protective of their trademarks, and this includes CentOS, Fedora, CoreOS etc

by em500 6y ago

mbreese 6y ago

RedHat has to permit the redistribution per the GPL. But there is nothing stating that your support contract can’t be cancelled if you do it. (I don’t have any first hand knowledge of this, just a guess).

bigbubba 6y ago
Grsecurity also uses this 'loophole.' Seeing this scheme go mainstream is really disheartening; I feel that it really undermines the intent and social value of the GPL.
- ikiris 6y ago
  It's supposed to be against the GPL, but no one is willing to chase it.
  - dralley 6y ago
    In what way is it "supposed to be against the GPL"?
    - hvdijk 6y ago
      See Bruce Perens's explanation: <https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-c...>. The short story: adding a penalty to an action that the GPL allows is a restriction of that action, and the GPL does not allow setting additional restrictions. This has not been tested in court, as far as I know.
      - andi999 6y ago
        In the case of Red Hat it is not a penalty (as far as I understand) but a 'bonus' you can keep your support contract when obliging..
        hvdijk 6y ago
        My understanding is that Red Hat does allow redistribution so long as you do not infringe on its trademarks. Given that no version of the GPL ever granted trademark rights, this is not an additional restriction, so this is fine.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      The same way something like "we can tell you, but then we'll have to kill you" would be against the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act.

type0 6y ago

> I don't know whether that's due to lack of interest, or due to some Red Had shenanigans that makes redistribution illegal/unattractive. Red Hat is overly protective of their trademarks, and this includes CentOS, Fedora, CoreOS etc