6 ms·

> Rocky Linux remains dedicated to its mission of delivering a community-based, accessible, and transparent EL operating system. The project pledges to keep its

> 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

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