8 ms·
Impact of RHEL Changes to AlmaLinux
- JonChesterfield 3y agoThe consensus here appears to be that red hat N is all GPL and released as source, but red hat N.1 is not a derived work of GPL code so it's fine if they keep it secret. That's a pretty thin ledge to stand on - if _red hat linux_ is not a derived work of masses of GPL code, what would be?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pabs3 3y agoNot quite, it is more like the GPL gives you the right to distribute/modify RHEL N, but not to N+1, unless you already have it. The RH subscription gives you RHEL N, and RHEL N+1 but only if you didn't distribute RHEL N.
- JonChesterfield 3y agoThe GPL covers derived work. Redhat N+1 is definitely a derived work of redhat N which is itself under GPL as it's definitely a derived work of all the GPL software they build it out of. If the line of reasoning you and others are proposing was sound, I could sell GCC with source code, then change a line of code and thereafter sell it as MyBestCompiler without ever distributing source code again.
- pabs3 3y agoSure, but if they don't give you binaries of N+1, they don't have to give you sources of N+1 and nothing in the GPL requires them to give you binaries of N+1.
- ossusermivami 3y agomaybe that's a bit unpopular opinion but I'd rather see this kind of changes if that means there is no more layoffs and they won't suddenly cutoff the spending on some opensource project... I don't rely on Redhat anymore (except for OpenShift) and fully switched to SuSe contracts now but i am happy with Redhat contributed technology to the Linux world.
- sunshine-o 3y agoSince I'm a bit lost regarding the current RHEL clones I was looking into AlmaLinux. I can't help myself feeling suspicious regarding those type of organizations, by that I mean investing time & commuting to a long term migration or contributing to the project. It's a lot about leadership team with pompous titles like "Chair or the board of directors" who by the way worked for Microsoft at the same time. So yes, what Redhat did sucks, but there have always been a much larger battle between the Microsoft, IBM & co running in the background. And it is an ugly one in which free software & open source are caught in the middle.
- beanjuiceII 3y agoI thought IBM bought redhat years ago?
- Nux 3y agoExactly, this is IBM politics.
- zamalek 3y agoThe real question is: is Alma/Rocky (and the prior CentOS) RHEL compatible, or is RHEL compatible with them? I assume it's the latter because Alma/Rocky are a great proposition for prototyping, and RHEL can be dragged in later for compliance. Red Hat are eliminating a user vector/funnel here.
- xuhu 3y agoWhen RHEL compatibility is mentioned, I always wonder which kind. ABI for system libs, default packages and patches, kernel symbols and structs, selinux policies ? And if "all of the above" then what room for improvement via forks is there ?
- Yasuraka 3y agoHere's to hoping that this is aimed at Oracle and it all works out for Alma (I hate Oracle)
- candiddevmike 3y agoSo Alma will no longer have parity and will be the equivalent of CentOS Stream. Hopefully everyone who chose it over Rocky are OK migrating again.
- Shared404 3y agoThat's not what Alma claims in their statement https://almalinux.org/blog/impact-of-rhel-changes/ https://almalinux.org/blog/impact-of-rhel-changes/: > Can you just use CentOS Stream sources? > No, we are committed to remaining a downstream RHEL clone, and using CentOS Stream sources would make us upstream of RHEL. CentOS Stream sources, while being upstream of RHEL, do not always include all patches and updates that are included in RHEL packages.
- acrispino 3y agoIsn't Rocky in the same boat? It doesn't seem they have any more access to RHEL sources than Alma does.
- jonathanspw 3y agoAll rebuilds are in the same boat.
- Alupis 3y agoI have to say - my reaction to all this uncertainty isn't to rush out and buy RHEL licenses. Quite the opposite actually. For the first time in my life, I'm considering Debian (and derivatives) for my systems. Rocky and Alma might be able to survive the changes, this time. What happens when IBM doesn't squeeze enough revenue out of RH? More changes?
- amluto 3y agoI was seriously considering migrating from Ubuntu to RHEL. Now I’m less interested.
- candiddevmike 3y agoWhy not Fedora?
- Alupis 3y agoFedora is excellent for workstations - not for servers. It's just not stable enough, and the update/upgrade cadence is too fast and short-lived. I've used Fedora on my personal workstations forever it seems. But, spend enough time in linux-land and you'll find out there's two very different ways of doing things. There's the Debian Way, and the Red Hat Way. You tend to want to know one really well, even if you can "get by" on the other. (yes, other ways do exist - but they are much more niche) So, if my servers go Debian (and/or derivatives), so will my personal workstations.
- Shared404 3y ago> But, spend enough time in linux-land and you'll find out there's two very different ways of doing things. There's the Debian Way, and the Red Hat Way. For enterprise Linux at least. On my home systems I usually use Alpine or Arch, both of which are distinctly unlike both Debian and RHEL.
- freedomben 3y agoArch for the most part does things the same way that Fedora does. At least, way more the Fedora way than the Debian way. I would consider Arch as part of the "Red Hat" way of doing things.
- rafaelturk 3y agoI'm completely lost in this topic, I have no idea what is going on, can someone please summarise ?
- dboreham 3y agoIBM MBA says "money left on table, what can we do about that?" Someone suggests that GPL letter of the law only requires source be distributed with binaries, and so they decide to do that.
- freedomben 3y agoYou forgot the part about "other people take Red Hat's source, rebuild it with different branding, give it away for free, and also offer/sell support, undercutting Red Hat's own offering." Otherwise, I would bet you're correct.
- monkeywork 3y agoRH (ie IBM) only really makes money off of RHEL via support contracts. They noticed that a lot of ppl would use CENTOS to avoid paying for licenses, so they essentially killed it, they now notice that folks like Oracle are basically just using their source rebranded and selling support contracts that undercut them on their own software - so they are taking this action in a way to counter it. Unfortunately, Alma and Rocky are going to get caught in the crossfire on this one, people are acting like this was some targeted thing at Alma or Rocky - honestly, they are likely barely on IBMs radar, this is aimed at Oracle.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- josephcsible 3y ago> Red Hat’s user interface agreements indicate that re-publishing sources acquired through the customer portal would be a violation of those agreements. A bunch of the software in the customer portal is GPL, which says: "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
- ranger_danger 3y agoAren't the vast majority of RHEL packages GPL? I assume Alma's "indication" that this would be a violation... is incorrect in that case?
- fariszr 3y agoIt's not a violation, because every RHEL user is a customer, which has access to the source code. They can't sue you for redistribution, but they can ban your account for breaking their T&C.
- maxloh 3y agoHow could Red Hat identify the person who "leak" the source in the internet?
- josephcsible 3y agoHow is saying "I'll ban you if you exercise these rights" not imposing a further restriction on them?
- geerlingguy 3y ago> Is Red Hat trying to kill downstream clones? > We cannot speak to Red Hat’s intentions, and can only point to the things they have said publicly. We have had an incredible working relationship with Red Hat through the life of AlmaLinux OS and we hope to see that continue. Reading between the lines, it sounds like they have a similar relationship to Red Hat that I do: tons of great folks who still work there and weren't burned by the IBM acquisition... but officially it doesn't seem like community downstreams that filled in the role CentOS used to play have a good relationship with Red Hat. Otherwise this change (which some people are saying is fine, just poorly communicated) would've been announced with time for the community to adapt to it, rather than being announced in a blog post a week or two after the technical/process change was made!
- OldManRyan 3y agoThis response reads like the responses third-party reddit client developers gave when the API changes were announced. "What's going to happen? We don't know but we have a great working relationship with reddit and they said it SHOULD be fine..." and we all know how that turned out.
- jtriangle 3y agoExcept reddit actually controls all of the keys to castle in that example, whereas in this one IBM controls very little. They also lack the ability to whack-a-mole people legally sharing source code with distro maintainers. Their only way out is to close-source all of RHEL, which, good luck re-writing all that GPL code... not gonna happen. Not to mention, even if they did, they'd end up in a compatibility nightmare, where they're constantly fixing packages when GNU diverges from what they've done internally, or package maintainers intentionally making it difficult to run their packages on RHEL-OS, which will absolutely happen given the amount of bad blood they'd create from all that. This move is clearly to make it more difficult for Oracle, and I'd imagine they'll keep playing nice with everyone else because it's in their best interests to do so.
- awill 3y agoExactly right on the lack of notice. What happens to people relying on Alma/Rocky? They're possibly screwed. Of course, RHEL (or others) could say that if you're depending on a free product, you're to blame. That's where I would disagree a bit. Many of these really large customers could just have easily chosen Debian, or something else. They simply don't need and don't want to pay for support. With Alma/Rocky, they had a perfect option, a no-support, free EL distro. RHEL did not lose these customers to Alma/Rocky. Those customers would have just chosen a different free distro. This is downhill for RHEL
- MattSteelblade 3y ago> "In the immediate term, our plan is to pull from CentOS Stream updates and Oracle Linux updates to ensure security patches continue to be released." Does this mean that Oracle has an arrangement with RedHat/IBM that won't be disrupted by this change?
- monkeywork 3y agoI think this entire action is done BECAUSE of Oracle and Alma is just betting that Oracle is invested enough to take on the fight that Alma can't and will use them as a wedge. While IBM/RH is unlikely to outright name Oracle as the reason I think it's clear they are the basically the only big player selling support contracts for what is essentially RHEL and undercutting them.
- toyg 3y agoThat's very likely. A lot of RedHat customers buy RHEL to run Oracle Database on it, they'd be stupid to piss them off.
- geerlingguy 3y agoSee also, Rocky Linux Etherpad notes on the change: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/r.24fab14385c0aa2db6fa7340a8b2aae7 https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/r.24fab14385c0aa2db6fa7340a8b...
- dang 3y agoRecent and related: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36420259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36420259 - June 2023 (296 comments)
- fariszr 3y ago> In the immediate term, our plan is to pull from CentOS Stream updates and Oracle Linux updates to ensure security patches continue to be released. These updates will be carefully curated to ensure they are 1:1 compatible with RHEL, while not violating Red Hat’s licensing, and will be vetted and tested just like all of our other releases. I think they won't find any other solution than this. Maybe create an Ubuntu Pro clone? If Ubuntu pro patches are even open?
- zb3 3y agoAs a Fedora user, I like this. People who want to use RHEL should pay and there should be no way around that so I can use my Fedora for free. Good job!
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoEr, what? You're glad they're stopping other freeloaders so that you can be a freeloader instead? Is this satire?
- josephcsible 3y agoI think the intended sentiment is "if you don't want to pay, then you should have to run (and so help test) the new bleeding-edge thing, instead of using the old stable enterprise thing."
- zb3 3y agoI'm an individual freeloader, but I occasionally report bugs. I understand that I might encounter bugs and/or provide some free contributions to Red Hat, but that's in exchange for a well functioning desktop distribution. Now, if the commercial product is the stability itself(!), why 'd you expect that stability for free? Why should Red Hat customers pay for other, non-paying enterprise users?
- justinclift 3y agoSo, the people who put their time and effort into the upstream projects which RHEL uses (without paying them), you're saying those people are freeloaders if they want to build things on Alma or Rocky Linux? What about the CentOS users who report bugs, or help out with (say) writing RHEL docs without getting paid? You're saying they're freeloaders too? That sounds like a pretty crappy viewpoint to me, as I used to do all of the above. I did personally read the writing on the wall correctly though, with the previous major "CentOS 8 Stream" change (after the IBM acquisition). So, switched all of my stuff away from Red Hat based software at that point.
- 5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
- MattSteelblade 3y agoDue to the discontinuation of Centos 8 and these manufactured obstacles faced by RHEL derivatives, I am strongly considering migrating our systems to Debian.
- phpisthebest 3y agoI have already seen a ton of vendors that once only has RHEL certifications for their software switch to having RHEL and Debian or Ubuntu Certifications for deployment Clearly the enterprise market is moving, as once in the US every vendor would mainly only support RHEL, now I am seeing most support both RHEL and Debian\Ubuntu
- lockhouse 3y agoFreeBSD is another solid server OS if you don't need anything that specifically requires Linux. > Under the current support model, each major version’s stable branch is explicitly supported for 5 years, while each individual point release is only supported for three months after the next point release. It's also easier to upgrade between FreeBSD major releases than RHEL and clones. https://www.freebsd.org/security/ https://www.freebsd.org/security/
- dralley 3y agoI don't understand why anyone that would consider switching to Debian has problems with CentOS Stream. They have the same release model / policy.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]