4 ms·

We are as entitled to it as we are to the Linux kernel on which it's based. That's the cost of building a product on GPL2 licensed software. The CentOS projec

We are as entitled to it as we are to the Linux kernel on which it's based. That's the cost of building a product on GPL2 licensed software. The CentOS project itself wasn't started by Red Hat. It was given to them with the expectation that they would be good stewards of it. In killing its core mission, they haven't been. EDIT: Clarify sentence.

tux1968 6y ago
> We are as entitled to it as we are to the Linux kernel on which it's based. Are you claiming they are in violation of the GPL license? I believe they still are 100% in compliance. > The CentOS project itself wasn't started by Red Hat. It was given to them with the expectation that they would be good stewards of it. They haven't. They stepped in to stewardship of the product quite naturally, with the full backing of the previous stewards. Nobody was forced into that agreement. It wasn't given to them as a gift, Red Hat has sponsored the project for the last 6+ years. The fact that you disagree with the direction it has since gone, does not mean it's wrong. It may be the difference between having something more modest, and having nothing at all. And if you want something closer to the original CentOS check out: https://rockylinux.org/ https://rockylinux.org/ Which was created by the CentOS founder.
- runlevel1 6y ago
  > Are you claiming they are in violation of the GPL license? I'm not, they are indeed compliant, and Red Hat is not obligated to directly maintain CentOS. They are only obligated to provide the source to customers under the terms of the GPL. However, if Red Hat no longer wants to maintain CentOS in the spirit in which it was founded and taken over, I'd argue the ethical thing to do would be to spin the project back out of Red Hat.
_-david-_ 6y ago
>We are as entitled to it as we are to the Linux kernel on which it's based. >That's the cost of building a product on GPL2 licensed software. You are only entitled to the GPL code if it is distributed to you (as in you are a customer).

tux1968 6y ago

> We are as entitled to it as we are to the Linux kernel on which it's based. Are you claiming they are in violation of the GPL license? I believe they still are 100% in compliance. > The CentOS project itself wasn't started by Red Hat. It was given to them with the expectation that they would be good stewards of it. They haven't. They stepped in to stewardship of the product quite naturally, with the full backing of the previous stewards. Nobody was forced into that agreement. It wasn't given to them as a gift, Red Hat has sponsored the project for the last 6+ years. The fact that you disagree with the direction it has since gone, does not mean it's wrong. It may be the difference between having something more modest, and having nothing at all. And if you want something closer to the original CentOS check out: https://rockylinux.org/ https://rockylinux.org/ Which was created by the CentOS founder.

runlevel1 6y ago
> Are you claiming they are in violation of the GPL license? I'm not, they are indeed compliant, and Red Hat is not obligated to directly maintain CentOS. They are only obligated to provide the source to customers under the terms of the GPL. However, if Red Hat no longer wants to maintain CentOS in the spirit in which it was founded and taken over, I'd argue the ethical thing to do would be to spin the project back out of Red Hat.

_-david-_ 6y ago

>We are as entitled to it as we are to the Linux kernel on which it's based. >That's the cost of building a product on GPL2 licensed software. You are only entitled to the GPL code if it is distributed to you (as in you are a customer).