6 ms·

This is only true it RHEL was self contained OS Project with no Upstream sources itself... That is not the case, RHEL is not possible with out the wider ecosy

This is only true it RHEL was self contained OS Project with no Upstream sources itself... That is not the case, RHEL is not possible with out the wider ecosystem, and to say Rocky Linux is a "dirtbag" for repacking RHEL, would be like saying RedHat is a "dirtbag" for packaging any number of free software projects they consume into their product. It completely antithetical the free software movement for which Linux is Licensed However it is perfectly on brand of the "Open Source" corporatist movement that seems to be supplanting free software

pietro72ohboy 3y ago
> However it is perfectly on brand of the "Open Source" corporatist movement that seems to be supplanting free software This has been happening on HN too. The vilification of GPL and AGPL as ”not free in the truest sense of the word”, the usage of RMS and his personal image to label the free software movement outdated/fanatical/toxic is a testament to how corporate rebranding efforts have succeeded in replacing free software with open-source — software that is conveniently licensed so that corporations can bake it into their product without a single concern for the longevity or well-being of the developer or the software itself.
- reidrac 3y ago
  I think you mean anti-copyleft. Free Software and Open Source are essentially the same, despite the philosophical differences. The issue here is against the copyleft (GPL and AGPL).
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    >>Free Software and Open Source are essentially the same, No ... no they are not >>despite the philosophical differences. And those differences are HUGE and make them incompatible
    - reidrac 3y ago
      Well, go and check: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Then see how many of those are OSI approved licences (thus open source).
      - rout39574 3y ago
        Yes, anything the FSF blesses also qualifies as open source. Can you articulate what point you're trying to make, that this supports?
        School-Cotton 3y ago
        The inverse is also true (barring possibly some insignificant exceptions). Can you name any mainstream open source license that is not considered free software?
      - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
        Free implies open source. Open source does not imply free.
        School-Cotton 3y ago
        Name an open source license that you don’t consider free software, then. Note that “source available” (Business Software License, etc.) is not the same thing as “open source”.
        phpisthebest 3y ago
        Any non-copy left license is not free software.
        School-Cotton 3y ago
        Wrong according to the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#X11License https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#X11License https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#FreeBSD https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#FreeBSD
  - dTal 3y ago
    The following things are all true: * the term "open source" predates the term "free software" in the FSF sense * "open source" was proposed as a synonym for "free software" in the late 90s * liguistically, the term "free software" emphasizes freedom, while "open source" emphasizes source-available * there is no law mandating everyone use OSI's definition of "open source" * consequently, there is ambiguity in the term "open source", ambiguity exploitable by those who want the social cachet of free software but are not philosophically aligned with it * there is ambiguity in the term "free software" as well but don't worry, if they mean it in the FSF sense they will certainly take the time to explain I humbly submit therefore that the GP framing is essentially correct, that RMS was right not to endorse the term "open source", and that whatever OSI says the term is philosophically compromised and should be "considered harmful".
- johnny22 3y ago
  > , the usage of RMS and his personal image to label the free software movement outdated/fanatical/toxic What if i love and use the AGPL, but also won't involve myself with the FSF because I think they are runining the movement and also definitely want no direct association with RMS. I think RMS is an active harm to the cause of Free Software.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Yeah. Open source is a wealth transfer from developers to corporations. I've reached the conclusion that anything other than AGPLv3 means we're working against our own interests. Giving up the leverage provided by the GPL benefits only corporations.
  - fatherlinnux 3y ago
    I think I get the gist of your sentiment, and somewhat agree, but let me clarify. GPL, only enforces redistribution of software you distribute, "to" the people you desteibute it to, aka customers. Most other licenses (MIT, Apache, BSD, etc) don't require any code redistribution (though some require attribution). GPL ~= redistribution to customers Other ~= no redistribution Red Hat is complying with the GPL requirements even for BSD, Apache, and BSD licensed code, which I think is good. I think a more sinister trend forming is around open core, and essentially proprietary code mixed with no code redistribution at all. This makes open core essentially closed source for all intents and purposes. Companies are using open core simply for free marketing and to drive technology adoption in the sales/marketing funnels.
jzb 3y ago
I'm not going to call Rocky or Alma "dirtbags" (does anybody use that phrase these days?) but comparing what Red Hat does to Rocky is misleading. RHEL Clones: Take finished source code, rebuild, test, release. RHEL: Work upstream to develop features / submit features upstream before inclusion in RHEL, maintain specific versions of upstream, test hundreds of upstreams together to make sure they can be shipped together as an operating system, develop "glue" software like Anaconda to install + manage the whole thing, take source, build, test, release, accept bugs, start over again for next minor release or major release as needed. And, of course, this elides all the certification work that makes RHEL an attractive enough project to rebuild in the first place because people want very specifically a RHEL compatible distribution to run an application or applications on top of. What people get pissed at Red Hat about isn't that they don't get to access the source. They're pissed they don't get the convenience. Largely speaking, the people who get pissed aren't concerned about Free Software, either - they just want easy to run binaries. As I understand it "get binaries for free" is not mandated by the four freedoms. The source code is still out there for people to study, change, use, and redistribute. That seems entirely compatible with the free software ethos - but incompatible with the freeloader ethos.
- fatherlinnux 3y ago
  I read this comment, said to myself hell yeah, this person gets it, then realized it was my friend JZB!!! On point my friend, on point!
- NegativeK 3y ago
  Rocky and Alma are doing exactly what CentOS pre-Stream did for _six_ years. Now they're frustrated that their decision to kill the CentOS idea didn't stick? Red Hat might have the legal right to gate their product, but it seems really slimy to build RHEL on the work of who knows how many people that publish it for free and then to put road blocks around their derivative. I don't really like reductionist blaming, but I feel basically forced to wonder what Red Hat would be doing if IBM wasn't involved.
  - jzb 3y ago
    "it seems really slimy to build RHEL on the work of who knows how many people that publish it for free and then to put road blocks around their derivative" I'm always curious that people get angry at Red Hat profiting on the work of others, but few people get angry at the companies that use a RHEL clone to run their business and pay nothing and contribute nothing. Red Hat is still releasing source code. The only thing that it's not doing is making it super-convenient to rebuild exactly its product. Seriously - for most purposes CentOS Stream is just fine if what you want is a distro that feels like RHEL. Its one drawback is that it's not a one-for-one clone of RHEL, which generally only really matters if you are using it to run your business. Which gets me back to - why are people so pissed at Red Hat but not all the organizations that make money using RHEL but don't pay towards its development?
stereolambda 3y ago
I don't dislike your sentiment and don't see Rocky Linux as dirtbags, but I think it is important for GPL that you have to[1] provide source only if you provide binaries (IANAL, lawyers correct me). So you should be able to have a business where you sell software and the people who buy receive the GPL'd source code (that they can then modify and share). You don't have to develop in public, or use version control programs: participate in the whole "GitHub culture". GPL tries to guarantee an environment for user freedom (not developer convenience, like permissive licenses). It has builtin protection against someone closing the source. It doesn't protect against some company pulling an Internet Explorer on you (i.e. providing a free equivalent) with your own code, because this doesn't directly concern user freedoms. You don't have to be actively helping them though. I think ultimately free-of-charge mirrors should exist, but I see good potentials in companies discovering business merits of GPL, and hopefully AGPL. We need more vigor for those, after getting lucky once with Linux. We cannot rely on good will of corporations (only enforced law works on them), so any sign of luring them into copyleft somehow is a good thing. This would be a long road, but who knows what could happen in the current "AI" chaos and regulation scares. [1] Of course only have to assuming that you are not the original author and you're building on someone else's code received under GPL.

pietro72ohboy 3y ago

> However it is perfectly on brand of the "Open Source" corporatist movement that seems to be supplanting free software This has been happening on HN too. The vilification of GPL and AGPL as ”not free in the truest sense of the word”, the usage of RMS and his personal image to label the free software movement outdated/fanatical/toxic is a testament to how corporate rebranding efforts have succeeded in replacing free software with open-source — software that is conveniently licensed so that corporations can bake it into their product without a single concern for the longevity or well-being of the developer or the software itself.

reidrac 3y ago
I think you mean anti-copyleft. Free Software and Open Source are essentially the same, despite the philosophical differences. The issue here is against the copyleft (GPL and AGPL).
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>Free Software and Open Source are essentially the same, No ... no they are not >>despite the philosophical differences. And those differences are HUGE and make them incompatible
  - reidrac 3y ago
    Well, go and check: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Then see how many of those are OSI approved licences (thus open source).
    - rout39574 3y ago
      Yes, anything the FSF blesses also qualifies as open source. Can you articulate what point you're trying to make, that this supports?
      - School-Cotton 3y ago
        The inverse is also true (barring possibly some insignificant exceptions). Can you name any mainstream open source license that is not considered free software?
    - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
      Free implies open source. Open source does not imply free.
      - School-Cotton 3y ago
        Name an open source license that you don’t consider free software, then. Note that “source available” (Business Software License, etc.) is not the same thing as “open source”.
        phpisthebest 3y ago
        Any non-copy left license is not free software.
        School-Cotton 3y ago
        Wrong according to the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#X11License https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#X11License https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#FreeBSD https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#FreeBSD
- dTal 3y ago
  The following things are all true: * the term "open source" predates the term "free software" in the FSF sense * "open source" was proposed as a synonym for "free software" in the late 90s * liguistically, the term "free software" emphasizes freedom, while "open source" emphasizes source-available * there is no law mandating everyone use OSI's definition of "open source" * consequently, there is ambiguity in the term "open source", ambiguity exploitable by those who want the social cachet of free software but are not philosophically aligned with it * there is ambiguity in the term "free software" as well but don't worry, if they mean it in the FSF sense they will certainly take the time to explain I humbly submit therefore that the GP framing is essentially correct, that RMS was right not to endorse the term "open source", and that whatever OSI says the term is philosophically compromised and should be "considered harmful".
johnny22 3y ago
> , the usage of RMS and his personal image to label the free software movement outdated/fanatical/toxic What if i love and use the AGPL, but also won't involve myself with the FSF because I think they are runining the movement and also definitely want no direct association with RMS. I think RMS is an active harm to the cause of Free Software.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Yeah. Open source is a wealth transfer from developers to corporations. I've reached the conclusion that anything other than AGPLv3 means we're working against our own interests. Giving up the leverage provided by the GPL benefits only corporations.
- fatherlinnux 3y ago
  I think I get the gist of your sentiment, and somewhat agree, but let me clarify. GPL, only enforces redistribution of software you distribute, "to" the people you desteibute it to, aka customers. Most other licenses (MIT, Apache, BSD, etc) don't require any code redistribution (though some require attribution). GPL ~= redistribution to customers Other ~= no redistribution Red Hat is complying with the GPL requirements even for BSD, Apache, and BSD licensed code, which I think is good. I think a more sinister trend forming is around open core, and essentially proprietary code mixed with no code redistribution at all. This makes open core essentially closed source for all intents and purposes. Companies are using open core simply for free marketing and to drive technology adoption in the sales/marketing funnels.

jzb 3y ago

I'm not going to call Rocky or Alma "dirtbags" (does anybody use that phrase these days?) but comparing what Red Hat does to Rocky is misleading. RHEL Clones: Take finished source code, rebuild, test, release. RHEL: Work upstream to develop features / submit features upstream before inclusion in RHEL, maintain specific versions of upstream, test hundreds of upstreams together to make sure they can be shipped together as an operating system, develop "glue" software like Anaconda to install + manage the whole thing, take source, build, test, release, accept bugs, start over again for next minor release or major release as needed. And, of course, this elides all the certification work that makes RHEL an attractive enough project to rebuild in the first place because people want very specifically a RHEL compatible distribution to run an application or applications on top of. What people get pissed at Red Hat about isn't that they don't get to access the source. They're pissed they don't get the convenience. Largely speaking, the people who get pissed aren't concerned about Free Software, either - they just want easy to run binaries. As I understand it "get binaries for free" is not mandated by the four freedoms. The source code is still out there for people to study, change, use, and redistribute. That seems entirely compatible with the free software ethos - but incompatible with the freeloader ethos.

fatherlinnux 3y ago
I read this comment, said to myself hell yeah, this person gets it, then realized it was my friend JZB!!! On point my friend, on point!
NegativeK 3y ago
Rocky and Alma are doing exactly what CentOS pre-Stream did for _six_ years. Now they're frustrated that their decision to kill the CentOS idea didn't stick? Red Hat might have the legal right to gate their product, but it seems really slimy to build RHEL on the work of who knows how many people that publish it for free and then to put road blocks around their derivative. I don't really like reductionist blaming, but I feel basically forced to wonder what Red Hat would be doing if IBM wasn't involved.
- jzb 3y ago
  "it seems really slimy to build RHEL on the work of who knows how many people that publish it for free and then to put road blocks around their derivative" I'm always curious that people get angry at Red Hat profiting on the work of others, but few people get angry at the companies that use a RHEL clone to run their business and pay nothing and contribute nothing. Red Hat is still releasing source code. The only thing that it's not doing is making it super-convenient to rebuild exactly its product. Seriously - for most purposes CentOS Stream is just fine if what you want is a distro that feels like RHEL. Its one drawback is that it's not a one-for-one clone of RHEL, which generally only really matters if you are using it to run your business. Which gets me back to - why are people so pissed at Red Hat but not all the organizations that make money using RHEL but don't pay towards its development?

stereolambda 3y ago

I don't dislike your sentiment and don't see Rocky Linux as dirtbags, but I think it is important for GPL that you have to[1] provide source only if you provide binaries (IANAL, lawyers correct me). So you should be able to have a business where you sell software and the people who buy receive the GPL'd source code (that they can then modify and share). You don't have to develop in public, or use version control programs: participate in the whole "GitHub culture". GPL tries to guarantee an environment for user freedom (not developer convenience, like permissive licenses). It has builtin protection against someone closing the source. It doesn't protect against some company pulling an Internet Explorer on you (i.e. providing a free equivalent) with your own code, because this doesn't directly concern user freedoms. You don't have to be actively helping them though. I think ultimately free-of-charge mirrors should exist, but I see good potentials in companies discovering business merits of GPL, and hopefully AGPL. We need more vigor for those, after getting lucky once with Linux. We cannot rely on good will of corporations (only enforced law works on them), so any sign of luring them into copyleft somehow is a good thing. This would be a long road, but who knows what could happen in the current "AI" chaos and regulation scares. [1] Of course only have to assuming that you are not the original author and you're building on someone else's code received under GPL.