9 ms·

Rocky Linux Expresses Confidence Despite Red Hat's Announcement

99 points by fariszr 3y ago

jacooper 3y ago
A lot of wishy washy talk without anything to back it up. Anyone using alma or rocky should start planning their stream/RHEL Dev or Ubuntu/Debian migration.
fariszr 3y ago
> Rocky Linux remains dedicated to its mission of delivering a community-based, accessible, and transparent EL operating system. The project pledges to keep its promise to maintain the full life-span of support for Rocky 8 and 9, and to continue to produce future RHEL-compatible versions as long as the option remains, allowing organizations to maintain the flexibility, control, and freedom they rely upon for their critical infrastructure. This is the open source way. Despite the title, this press release doesn't say much really, not how they are going to source patches, or they are going to continue their RHEL 1:1 bug compatibility. I think Almalinux's press release was much more direct to the point.
- pridkett 3y ago
  As it took me a while to find it, here’s Almalinux’s statement: https://almalinux.org/blog/impact-of-rhel-changes/ https://almalinux.org/blog/impact-of-rhel-changes/
  - bydo 3y ago
    And here's the discussion from a few hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36436375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36436375
  - onlypositive 3y ago
    > Red Hat has decided to continue to use the Customer Portal to share source code with our partners and customers, while treating CentOS Stream as the venue for collaboration with the community. > Unfortunately the way we understand it today, Red Hat’s user interface agreements indicate that re-publishing sources acquired through the customer portal would be a violation of those agreements. Pretty sure that's a gpl violation. > 6. 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. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC1 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC1
    - doublepg23 3y ago
      > any version Once they give you that version you can share it freely. That does not mean they can't stop giving you _new_ versions.
      - onlypositive 3y ago
        That's a restriction on sharing... It's a more restrictive license. Doesn't matter what the restriction is. It's a restriction.
        doublepg23 3y ago
        If a company gives you a binary of a GPL licensed program they _must_ give you a way to view the source. If they stop giving you the binary you are no longer entitled to the source.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        Yup, IBM can stop distributing RHEL anytime, but they cannot continue to distribute it while preventing their users to share the source code with some GPL-violating TOS, which is what they claim to do.
        unmole 3y ago
        > preventing their users to share the source They can't and they aren't proposing to do that. Rather they can stop doing business with such users.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        Except that threatening to unilateral breaking a contract explicitely violates the licence: > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. Whether or not this clause would be ruled valid in court is an open question, but the violation isn't. Unless you consider that “threatening customers to leave their business without the support they paid for” doesn't count as “imposing”, but that requires some mental gymnastic (what could this word even mean if not? Of course no company is going to use armed force to impose anything…)
- Shawnj2 3y ago
  I don’t see why Rocky wouldn’t be able to continue existing using old CentOS Stream releases. It wouldn’t be as easy or work as well as it currently does but there’s no reason why it wouldn’t work tk make a RHEL like OS.
  - tmottabr 3y ago
    From what i understood everything in CentOS Stream end up in RHEL, but not everything that is in RHEL came from CentOS Stream. They pull changes from other sources that are not in CentOS Stream and this is the challenge.
- happymellon 3y ago
  > RHEL 1:1 bug compatibility. Did they actually offer this, because CentOS never offered this.
  - Newtonip 3y ago
    Where I work, our target devices run RHEL but many of our dev workstations run Rocky Linux. If the software I write behaves on my workstation but then malfunctions on my target device because a bug was only fixed in Rocky Linux, that would be very annoying. I want stuff to run the exact same way on both so that I can develop workarounds if needed before even deploying to the targets.
    - rurban 3y ago
      So get RHEL for your devs then. The only guaranteed bug compatibility
    - happymellon 3y ago
      It might be very annoying but I still don't think they offer 1:1 bug compatibility, and I don't think they ever did. CentOS stated: https://www.spinics.net/lists/centos-devel/msg19564.html https://www.spinics.net/lists/centos-devel/msg19564.html > We came up with the phrase "bug-for-bug" compatible during EL5 as a GOAL to aim for. CentOS was NEVER bug-for-bug compatible. Rocky may have changed that line, but I would be surprised. CentOS was always "good enough".
    - happymellon 3y ago
      I thought that RHEL was free for developer workstations with the free RHEL developer subscription. What does Rocky provide you in this situation?
      - profwalkstr 3y ago
        Free for personal use, not workplace.
        3y ago
teruakohatu 3y ago
This is a little off topic, but can someone tell me the different between Rocky Linux and Alma Linux. Reading a few blog posts the only different I can't find is a slightly different release schedule, and different levels of funding. Can both continue in a post-RHEL-sources world?
- ilc 3y ago
  The notion of a post RHEL sources world is rather silly. This just makes things harder. As long as the source is out there, and the licenses of the code itself it permissive: Rebuilds will happen. How will the code get to the people doing the rebuild? Good question. And even if I knew the answer... I probably wouldn't say :).
  - teruakohatu 3y ago
    Would you build a business around unofficially obtained source? It would make supply chain attacks possible if only a couple of people are downloading the source and sharing it, only a couple of people need to be compromised and users would not be able to verify it. RH could also make it hard to get the source in an automated manner.
    - ilc 3y ago
      You imply there's only a few. There's always a way. If they make it hard to get the source code in an automated manner, they'll violate some of their licenses. We'll see.. This is going to be a game of cat and mouse. It'll be fun.
      - op00to 3y ago
        > If they make it hard to get the source code in an automated manner, they'll violate some of their licenses. There’s no legal requirement to provide source in any specific way. They can provide it on antiquated magnetic tape.
- hackerbrother 3y ago
nimbius 3y ago
Realistically redhat only serves two customers: 0. Government or affiliated that require scap/stig or other compliance frameworks like fips140 or hipaa and actually use stuff like fapolicyd or aide. 1. Large companies that build "support" into the risk matrix for leadership who are obligated by law to protect shareholders. Other companies that just "use Linux" probably use alma or rocky, but certainly aren't joined at the hip. Personally I hope this comes back to bite big blue. For this to have any effect on Oracle you'd need to have started doing it like a decade ago before they too started eating customers from #0
- lathiat 3y ago
  They did something similar with the Kernel in 2011. It's not an entirely new strategy. They stopped publishing the git tree or separate patches for the RHEL kernel and only published the tarball with no version control. At the time, Oracle started a project to reverse engineer it back into a set of unique patchsets called "RedPatch". Was kindof wild. Not sure how long it lasted. It doesn't seem live now, though. https://www.theregister.com/2011/03/04/red_hat_twarts_oracle_and_novell_with_change_to_source_code_packaging/ https://www.theregister.com/2011/03/04/red_hat_twarts_oracle... https://www.theregister.com/2012/11/12/oracle_launches_redpatch_repository/ https://www.theregister.com/2012/11/12/oracle_launches_redpa...
  - worthless-trash 3y ago
    Centos streams made the kernel source available in git.
    - rincebrain 3y ago
      The source was always available; the difference was that RH stopped breaking out their enormous delta from the vanilla tree into itemized patches. And as far as I can tell, that's still [1] just one giant patch wad for every update. [1] - https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/kernel/-/commits/c9s/ https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/kernel/-/commit...
- 3y ago
_ea1k 3y ago
Isn't this similar to the way things were before Cent OS was acquired? Or did they make source rpms available to everyone freely back then? EDIT: I looked into it a bit more and it looks like there used to be an FTP site with SRPMS. ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/os/SRPMS/
freedomben 3y ago
> The Rocky Linux community strongly believes in the open source value of collaboration. Rocky Linux contributors have participated as a responsible part of the EL ecosystem, regularly contributing upstream to CentOS Stream as well as Fedora, and other open source projects. These contributions strengthen the entire EL community. I'm really happy to hear this, but what sort of upstream contributions has Rocky sent?
- mgerdts 3y ago
  As a CentOS user when that was a thing, I looked for ways to contribute fixes to red hat for inclusion in future updates of RHEL. I came up empty. It seems the way at the time was to contribute the fix to fedora. Now I’m supposed to contribute it to CentOS stream. That’s not really a useful approach when the problem exists in the latest RHEL bits but not in these channels where they maybe accept contributions.
  - m4rtink 3y ago
    CentosOS stream feeds into the next release - isn't that where you want the fix to land ?
    - mgerdts 3y ago
      If I am experiencing a bug in RHEL 8.x and others with similar hardware could also experience the same bug, it would be swell for me to be able to submit a fix that would stand some chance of making it into a future RHEL 8.x release as well as RHEL 9.x releases. If it is fixed in CentOS Stream, I think the earliest release this will feed into is RHEL 10, since RHEL 9.x is already released. It's quite possible the problem is already fixed in Stream because the package was upgraded but that upgrade is unlikely to ever make it into RHEL 8.x.
      - freedomben 3y ago
        CentOS Stream is a lot closer to RHEL than that. There is a CentOS Stream 8 that feeds into RHEL 8, and a Stream 9 to RHEL 9, etc. If you want to get a fix into RHEL 8, you can submit it to Stream 8 and if accepted it will go into the next release of RHEL.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bashtoni 3y ago
IBM/Red Hat have just handed Rocky Linux the possibility of becoming the de facto enterprise Linux. The Rocky Linux team have already been selling support, but previously they could only hope to be an alternative to Red Hat. With IBM/Red Hat effectively abandoning Open Source, Rocky Linux can step in and position themselves to fill that gap. This will go down as yet another huge strategic blunder by IBM.
- ilc 3y ago
  Very unlikely that Rocky will become defacto. Companies I trust before Rocky: - Oracle - SuSE - Canonical Distros I know will survive pretty much no matter what: - Debian Now... What am I going to bet on if I'm a company who just got cut-off by Red Hat, and I really have little loyality to Red Hat. If I like RPM: SuSE. I'm sure there's a way to work out terms that are win/win. If I want to just have my own distro: Base off Debian. It has worked for Canonical for years now.
  - heywoodlh 3y ago
    Not personally a consumer of RHEL or other binary-compatible distros, so I'm probably out of the loop, but the phrasing of this comes across like Rocky may be less honest than the other companies you have listed. Is this the way it is meant (i.e. have they exhibited dishonest behavior)?
- nhanlon 3y ago
  The Rocky Linux team does _NOT_ sell support.
Proven 3y ago
[dead]
whatamota 3y ago
How is RHEL going to ensure that a customer does not redistribute the sources?
ianai 3y ago
Other than money, what's stopping RL or anyone making a proper fork and supporting it ala old RH?
fh973 3y ago
The internal analysis does not sound that optimistic, from https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/r.24fab14385c0aa2db6fa7340a8b2aae7#L83 https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/r.24fab14385c0aa2db6fa7340a8b... ... Options * Buy a farm in Nebraska or Montana. Raise cattle * Utilize RH subscriptions to access CDN sources and create local source mirrors for every package which we can then import from Q for legal: we need to review the licensing terms
- dralley 3y ago
  That sounds like a joke. It's also one of the very first things they wrote, not one of the last. I'll take this announcement as being closer to reality.
  - nhanlon 3y ago
    I'm not sure what the order in which we write our jokes has to do with anything. I'll work on my comedic timing, I guess.
Nine54 3y ago
[flagged]
Nine54 3y ago
Red Hat isn't changing the terms of the GPL. What they're doing is making access to the GPL code a benefit of maintaining an active Red Hat subscription, which has its own terms and conditions. If you have an active Red Hat subscription, then you can look at the source code all day long and may be able to redistribute it for purposes of bug fixes, etc. What you can't do is use your subscription to obtain the source code, which you then redistribute to someone that doesn't have a RH subscription. This would violate the terms and conditions of the RH subscription. Basically, they've inserted a new licensing layer 'above' the GPL: you can't obtain the GPL code unless you agree to the terms of the RH subscription in the first place. In other words, the RH subscription Ts and Cs supersede the GPL.

99 points by fariszr 3y ago

A lot of wishy washy talk without anything to back it up. Anyone using alma or rocky should start planning their stream/RHEL Dev or Ubuntu/Debian migration.

fariszr 3y ago

> Rocky Linux remains dedicated to its mission of delivering a community-based, accessible, and transparent EL operating system. The project pledges to keep its promise to maintain the full life-span of support for Rocky 8 and 9, and to continue to produce future RHEL-compatible versions as long as the option remains, allowing organizations to maintain the flexibility, control, and freedom they rely upon for their critical infrastructure. This is the open source way. Despite the title, this press release doesn't say much really, not how they are going to source patches, or they are going to continue their RHEL 1:1 bug compatibility. I think Almalinux's press release was much more direct to the point.

pridkett 3y ago
As it took me a while to find it, here’s Almalinux’s statement: https://almalinux.org/blog/impact-of-rhel-changes/ https://almalinux.org/blog/impact-of-rhel-changes/
- bydo 3y ago
  And here's the discussion from a few hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36436375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36436375
- onlypositive 3y ago
  > Red Hat has decided to continue to use the Customer Portal to share source code with our partners and customers, while treating CentOS Stream as the venue for collaboration with the community. > Unfortunately the way we understand it today, Red Hat’s user interface agreements indicate that re-publishing sources acquired through the customer portal would be a violation of those agreements. Pretty sure that's a gpl violation. > 6. 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. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC1 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC1
  - doublepg23 3y ago
    > any version Once they give you that version you can share it freely. That does not mean they can't stop giving you _new_ versions.
    - onlypositive 3y ago
      That's a restriction on sharing... It's a more restrictive license. Doesn't matter what the restriction is. It's a restriction.
      - doublepg23 3y ago
        If a company gives you a binary of a GPL licensed program they _must_ give you a way to view the source. If they stop giving you the binary you are no longer entitled to the source.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        Yup, IBM can stop distributing RHEL anytime, but they cannot continue to distribute it while preventing their users to share the source code with some GPL-violating TOS, which is what they claim to do.
        unmole 3y ago
        > preventing their users to share the source They can't and they aren't proposing to do that. Rather they can stop doing business with such users.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        Except that threatening to unilateral breaking a contract explicitely violates the licence: > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. Whether or not this clause would be ruled valid in court is an open question, but the violation isn't. Unless you consider that “threatening customers to leave their business without the support they paid for” doesn't count as “imposing”, but that requires some mental gymnastic (what could this word even mean if not? Of course no company is going to use armed force to impose anything…)
Shawnj2 3y ago
I don’t see why Rocky wouldn’t be able to continue existing using old CentOS Stream releases. It wouldn’t be as easy or work as well as it currently does but there’s no reason why it wouldn’t work tk make a RHEL like OS.
- tmottabr 3y ago
  From what i understood everything in CentOS Stream end up in RHEL, but not everything that is in RHEL came from CentOS Stream. They pull changes from other sources that are not in CentOS Stream and this is the challenge.
happymellon 3y ago
> RHEL 1:1 bug compatibility. Did they actually offer this, because CentOS never offered this.
- Newtonip 3y ago
  Where I work, our target devices run RHEL but many of our dev workstations run Rocky Linux. If the software I write behaves on my workstation but then malfunctions on my target device because a bug was only fixed in Rocky Linux, that would be very annoying. I want stuff to run the exact same way on both so that I can develop workarounds if needed before even deploying to the targets.
  - rurban 3y ago
    So get RHEL for your devs then. The only guaranteed bug compatibility
  - happymellon 3y ago
    It might be very annoying but I still don't think they offer 1:1 bug compatibility, and I don't think they ever did. CentOS stated: https://www.spinics.net/lists/centos-devel/msg19564.html https://www.spinics.net/lists/centos-devel/msg19564.html > We came up with the phrase "bug-for-bug" compatible during EL5 as a GOAL to aim for. CentOS was NEVER bug-for-bug compatible. Rocky may have changed that line, but I would be surprised. CentOS was always "good enough".
  - happymellon 3y ago
    I thought that RHEL was free for developer workstations with the free RHEL developer subscription. What does Rocky provide you in this situation?
    - profwalkstr 3y ago
      Free for personal use, not workplace.
      - 3y ago

teruakohatu 3y ago

This is a little off topic, but can someone tell me the different between Rocky Linux and Alma Linux. Reading a few blog posts the only different I can't find is a slightly different release schedule, and different levels of funding. Can both continue in a post-RHEL-sources world?

ilc 3y ago
The notion of a post RHEL sources world is rather silly. This just makes things harder. As long as the source is out there, and the licenses of the code itself it permissive: Rebuilds will happen. How will the code get to the people doing the rebuild? Good question. And even if I knew the answer... I probably wouldn't say :).
- teruakohatu 3y ago
  Would you build a business around unofficially obtained source? It would make supply chain attacks possible if only a couple of people are downloading the source and sharing it, only a couple of people need to be compromised and users would not be able to verify it. RH could also make it hard to get the source in an automated manner.
  - ilc 3y ago
    You imply there's only a few. There's always a way. If they make it hard to get the source code in an automated manner, they'll violate some of their licenses. We'll see.. This is going to be a game of cat and mouse. It'll be fun.
    - op00to 3y ago
      > If they make it hard to get the source code in an automated manner, they'll violate some of their licenses. There’s no legal requirement to provide source in any specific way. They can provide it on antiquated magnetic tape.
hackerbrother 3y ago

nimbius 3y ago

Realistically redhat only serves two customers: 0. Government or affiliated that require scap/stig or other compliance frameworks like fips140 or hipaa and actually use stuff like fapolicyd or aide. 1. Large companies that build "support" into the risk matrix for leadership who are obligated by law to protect shareholders. Other companies that just "use Linux" probably use alma or rocky, but certainly aren't joined at the hip. Personally I hope this comes back to bite big blue. For this to have any effect on Oracle you'd need to have started doing it like a decade ago before they too started eating customers from #0

lathiat 3y ago
They did something similar with the Kernel in 2011. It's not an entirely new strategy. They stopped publishing the git tree or separate patches for the RHEL kernel and only published the tarball with no version control. At the time, Oracle started a project to reverse engineer it back into a set of unique patchsets called "RedPatch". Was kindof wild. Not sure how long it lasted. It doesn't seem live now, though. https://www.theregister.com/2011/03/04/red_hat_twarts_oracle_and_novell_with_change_to_source_code_packaging/ https://www.theregister.com/2011/03/04/red_hat_twarts_oracle... https://www.theregister.com/2012/11/12/oracle_launches_redpatch_repository/ https://www.theregister.com/2012/11/12/oracle_launches_redpa...
- worthless-trash 3y ago
  Centos streams made the kernel source available in git.
  - rincebrain 3y ago
    The source was always available; the difference was that RH stopped breaking out their enormous delta from the vanilla tree into itemized patches. And as far as I can tell, that's still [1] just one giant patch wad for every update. [1] - https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/kernel/-/commits/c9s/ https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/kernel/-/commit...
3y ago

_ea1k 3y ago

Isn't this similar to the way things were before Cent OS was acquired? Or did they make source rpms available to everyone freely back then? EDIT: I looked into it a bit more and it looks like there used to be an FTP site with SRPMS. ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/os/SRPMS/

freedomben 3y ago

> The Rocky Linux community strongly believes in the open source value of collaboration. Rocky Linux contributors have participated as a responsible part of the EL ecosystem, regularly contributing upstream to CentOS Stream as well as Fedora, and other open source projects. These contributions strengthen the entire EL community. I'm really happy to hear this, but what sort of upstream contributions has Rocky sent?

mgerdts 3y ago
As a CentOS user when that was a thing, I looked for ways to contribute fixes to red hat for inclusion in future updates of RHEL. I came up empty. It seems the way at the time was to contribute the fix to fedora. Now I’m supposed to contribute it to CentOS stream. That’s not really a useful approach when the problem exists in the latest RHEL bits but not in these channels where they maybe accept contributions.
- m4rtink 3y ago
  CentosOS stream feeds into the next release - isn't that where you want the fix to land ?
  - mgerdts 3y ago
    If I am experiencing a bug in RHEL 8.x and others with similar hardware could also experience the same bug, it would be swell for me to be able to submit a fix that would stand some chance of making it into a future RHEL 8.x release as well as RHEL 9.x releases. If it is fixed in CentOS Stream, I think the earliest release this will feed into is RHEL 10, since RHEL 9.x is already released. It's quite possible the problem is already fixed in Stream because the package was upgraded but that upgrade is unlikely to ever make it into RHEL 8.x.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      CentOS Stream is a lot closer to RHEL than that. There is a CentOS Stream 8 that feeds into RHEL 8, and a Stream 9 to RHEL 9, etc. If you want to get a fix into RHEL 8, you can submit it to Stream 8 and if accepted it will go into the next release of RHEL.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bashtoni 3y ago

IBM/Red Hat have just handed Rocky Linux the possibility of becoming the de facto enterprise Linux. The Rocky Linux team have already been selling support, but previously they could only hope to be an alternative to Red Hat. With IBM/Red Hat effectively abandoning Open Source, Rocky Linux can step in and position themselves to fill that gap. This will go down as yet another huge strategic blunder by IBM.

ilc 3y ago
Very unlikely that Rocky will become defacto. Companies I trust before Rocky: - Oracle - SuSE - Canonical Distros I know will survive pretty much no matter what: - Debian Now... What am I going to bet on if I'm a company who just got cut-off by Red Hat, and I really have little loyality to Red Hat. If I like RPM: SuSE. I'm sure there's a way to work out terms that are win/win. If I want to just have my own distro: Base off Debian. It has worked for Canonical for years now.
- heywoodlh 3y ago
  Not personally a consumer of RHEL or other binary-compatible distros, so I'm probably out of the loop, but the phrasing of this comes across like Rocky may be less honest than the other companies you have listed. Is this the way it is meant (i.e. have they exhibited dishonest behavior)?
nhanlon 3y ago
The Rocky Linux team does _NOT_ sell support.

Proven 3y ago

[dead]

whatamota 3y ago

How is RHEL going to ensure that a customer does not redistribute the sources?

ianai 3y ago

Other than money, what's stopping RL or anyone making a proper fork and supporting it ala old RH?

fh973 3y ago

The internal analysis does not sound that optimistic, from https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/r.24fab14385c0aa2db6fa7340a8b2aae7#L83 https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/r.24fab14385c0aa2db6fa7340a8b... ... Options * Buy a farm in Nebraska or Montana. Raise cattle * Utilize RH subscriptions to access CDN sources and create local source mirrors for every package which we can then import from Q for legal: we need to review the licensing terms

dralley 3y ago
That sounds like a joke. It's also one of the very first things they wrote, not one of the last. I'll take this announcement as being closer to reality.
- nhanlon 3y ago
  I'm not sure what the order in which we write our jokes has to do with anything. I'll work on my comedic timing, I guess.

Nine54 3y ago

[flagged]

Nine54 3y ago

Red Hat isn't changing the terms of the GPL. What they're doing is making access to the GPL code a benefit of maintaining an active Red Hat subscription, which has its own terms and conditions. If you have an active Red Hat subscription, then you can look at the source code all day long and may be able to redistribute it for purposes of bug fixes, etc. What you can't do is use your subscription to obtain the source code, which you then redistribute to someone that doesn't have a RH subscription. This would violate the terms and conditions of the RH subscription. Basically, they've inserted a new licensing layer 'above' the GPL: you can't obtain the GPL code unless you agree to the terms of the RH subscription in the first place. In other words, the RH subscription Ts and Cs supersede the GPL.