4 ms·

So, we finally see IBM showing its ugly face. No more CentOS.

by Daho0n 6y ago

naringas 6y ago
they have no face, just a series of rules, methods, procedures,..etc. in all, a culture desgined by multiple generations of firm executives optimized to make profit in any way they can.
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  Well, they are a for profit company.
  - naringas 6y ago
    I'm only trying to say what they really are. it would be unfair to judge them only based on what they are. then again, I see open source slowly but steadily losing ground. and if open source has a tough time. free software has it even worse.
    - z29LiTp5qUC30n 6y ago
      The Free Software community is having a Renaissance right now and making advances on nearly every front. Turns out not compromising your principals and being zealots works.
      - dralley 6y ago
        Free software is doing well, yes. Businesses built-around free software, not so much. The list of successful companies based on fully FOSS software can practically be counted on one hand. Most of the time, the product may be very successful, but the company is really struggling. A lot of OSS development is now done by companies who don't care that much about the software, because their revenue is totally independent. Netflix, Uber, Microsoft, etc. Or it's open-core like Redis and Gitlab, with paid proprietary bits. Or "open source" with anti-service-provider licenses like MongoDB, Elastic, Redis.
      - jabl 6y ago
        Wait, what have I missed? I thought copyleft licensing has been steadily losing share to permissive licensing for a long time, with no end in sight. Can you point to information indicating otherwise? The Linux kernel itself keeps going from success to success, but that seems to be the last major copyleft bastion, and they also somewhat famously rejected GPLv3.
        beermonster 6y ago
        I think this is true, with the MIT license being the most popular. From Linus[1] on the topic of GPLv3, he chose GPLv2 as it was the best choice for doing kernel development - giving code and getting code back in return. One of his gripes about GPLv3, IIRC, was the 'Tivoization'[2] additions. He felt it was going too far the other way. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
        ghaff 6y ago
        Furthermore, unlike many other projects, Linux is not licensed GPLv2 or later and doesn't have copyright assignment. This makes changing the license unilaterally at least problematic. Not necessarily impossible but, at least some would argue the permission of all the contributors would be required which would be basically impossible.
        beermonster 6y ago
        Yes, Linus himself mentioned they'd all need to be contacted and agree. He also said he saw the GPLv3 draft and so it was an early and conscious decision to not have a 'GPLv2 or later' license.
        ghaff 6y ago
        There were differences of opinion at the time. Eben Moglen said something to the effect that it could probably be relicensed on the theory that its history suggested it could be treated as a collective work. But it would have been controversial and Linus didn't want to anyway so discussions never went further than that. Here's something I wrote at the time: https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-to-gplv3-a-practical-matter-not-a-legal-one/ https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-to-gplv3-a-practical-matter-...
m4r71n 6y ago
Why are people assuming this is in any way IBM's doing? I know it's easy to say "IBM bad" but everything that has been said so far indicates this was a joint decision between Red Hat engineering and the CentOS project board members. The cognitive dissonance in assuming every acquisition of a smaller company by a bigger one immediately results in the collapse of said small company is unreal.
- luma 6y ago
  It's not small versus big, Red Hat was a $34B acquisition. It's big and bigger. People are pointing at IBM because this is 100% the predictable consequence of a company like IBM purchasing an open source software organization. Open source isn't in their business model, so of course this was going to happen.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    >Open source isn't in their business model There's a very good possibility that Linux wouldn't have had the impact that it has had absent IBM's investments in the early 2000s. It's not an "open source company" but it has significant investments in open source.
    - luma 6y ago
      IBM of 2020 isn't the IBM of 2000. I'll look at their actions, not their words.
- raesene9 6y ago
  Whilst I'm not sure that there is strong evidence for this being related to the IBM acquisition, the idea of "blue wash" where acquired products have their licensing changed to fit in with IBM's way of doing things is so common that there's even an IBM web page about it https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/what-blue-wash https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/what-blue-wash. To quote that page "Once customers upgrade to IBM?s product it is often too late to negotiate and avoid hefty licensing charges associated with changed licensing metrics? "
cheph 6y ago
Except of course CentOS stream.

So, we finally see IBM showing its ugly face. No more CentOS.

by Daho0n 6y ago

So, we finally see IBM showing its ugly face. No more CentOS.

they have no face, just a series of rules, methods, procedures,..etc. in all, a culture desgined by multiple generations of firm executives optimized to make profit in any way they can.

Hnrobert42 6y ago
Well, they are a for profit company.
- naringas 6y ago
  I'm only trying to say what they really are. it would be unfair to judge them only based on what they are. then again, I see open source slowly but steadily losing ground. and if open source has a tough time. free software has it even worse.
  - z29LiTp5qUC30n 6y ago
    The Free Software community is having a Renaissance right now and making advances on nearly every front. Turns out not compromising your principals and being zealots works.
    - dralley 6y ago
      Free software is doing well, yes. Businesses built-around free software, not so much. The list of successful companies based on fully FOSS software can practically be counted on one hand. Most of the time, the product may be very successful, but the company is really struggling. A lot of OSS development is now done by companies who don't care that much about the software, because their revenue is totally independent. Netflix, Uber, Microsoft, etc. Or it's open-core like Redis and Gitlab, with paid proprietary bits. Or "open source" with anti-service-provider licenses like MongoDB, Elastic, Redis.
    - jabl 6y ago
      Wait, what have I missed? I thought copyleft licensing has been steadily losing share to permissive licensing for a long time, with no end in sight. Can you point to information indicating otherwise? The Linux kernel itself keeps going from success to success, but that seems to be the last major copyleft bastion, and they also somewhat famously rejected GPLv3.
      - beermonster 6y ago
        I think this is true, with the MIT license being the most popular. From Linus[1] on the topic of GPLv3, he chose GPLv2 as it was the best choice for doing kernel development - giving code and getting code back in return. One of his gripes about GPLv3, IIRC, was the 'Tivoization'[2] additions. He felt it was going too far the other way. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
        ghaff 6y ago
        Furthermore, unlike many other projects, Linux is not licensed GPLv2 or later and doesn't have copyright assignment. This makes changing the license unilaterally at least problematic. Not necessarily impossible but, at least some would argue the permission of all the contributors would be required which would be basically impossible.
        beermonster 6y ago
        Yes, Linus himself mentioned they'd all need to be contacted and agree. He also said he saw the GPLv3 draft and so it was an early and conscious decision to not have a 'GPLv2 or later' license.
        ghaff 6y ago
        There were differences of opinion at the time. Eben Moglen said something to the effect that it could probably be relicensed on the theory that its history suggested it could be treated as a collective work. But it would have been controversial and Linus didn't want to anyway so discussions never went further than that. Here's something I wrote at the time: https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-to-gplv3-a-practical-matter-not-a-legal-one/ https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-to-gplv3-a-practical-matter-...

m4r71n 6y ago

Why are people assuming this is in any way IBM's doing? I know it's easy to say "IBM bad" but everything that has been said so far indicates this was a joint decision between Red Hat engineering and the CentOS project board members. The cognitive dissonance in assuming every acquisition of a smaller company by a bigger one immediately results in the collapse of said small company is unreal.

luma 6y ago
It's not small versus big, Red Hat was a $34B acquisition. It's big and bigger. People are pointing at IBM because this is 100% the predictable consequence of a company like IBM purchasing an open source software organization. Open source isn't in their business model, so of course this was going to happen.
- ghaff 6y ago
  >Open source isn't in their business model There's a very good possibility that Linux wouldn't have had the impact that it has had absent IBM's investments in the early 2000s. It's not an "open source company" but it has significant investments in open source.
  - luma 6y ago
    IBM of 2020 isn't the IBM of 2000. I'll look at their actions, not their words.
raesene9 6y ago
Whilst I'm not sure that there is strong evidence for this being related to the IBM acquisition, the idea of "blue wash" where acquired products have their licensing changed to fit in with IBM's way of doing things is so common that there's even an IBM web page about it https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/what-blue-wash https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/what-blue-wash. To quote that page "Once customers upgrade to IBM?s product it is often too late to negotiate and avoid hefty licensing charges associated with changed licensing metrics? "

cheph 6y ago

Except of course CentOS stream.