4 ms·

> Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to

> Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source, and one that has the potential to revert open source back into a hobbyist- and hackers-only activity. So... completely tone deaf.

smoldesu 3y ago
It's not a GPL violation, but it's definitely a willful misinterpretation of it's goals. They're using a lot of mental gymnastics to try and make themselves out as the good guys here: > I feel that much of the anger from our recent decision around the downstream sources comes from either those who do not want to pay for the time, effort and resources going into RHEL or those who want to repackage it for their own profit. This demand for RHEL code is disingenuous. The demand for RHEL code is genuine. The expectation of a return on investment is the disingenuous part. GPL does not give you the right to deny others a genuine copy of your code. If someone pays for a RHEL license and then mirrors all the GPL packages, they would feasibly be complying with all the licenses in play. Putting up all these roadblocks and assuming self-righteousness is how the community loses trust in a platform like this.
- dataangel 3y ago
  They explicitly point out all of the code is still available.
  - naikrovek 3y ago
    you can't expect someone who wants to be angry to voluntarily ingest information which would make them less angry, you know.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    If that were materially true, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
dataangel 3y ago
They gotta eat, how do you propose to feed them? I'm pretty sure if all paid Redhat developers stopped contributing it would be a massive blow to the Linux ecosystem that would not readily be replaced by volunteers. They employ people who work on every fundamental pillar of kernel space and userspace. Even if the fired devs wanted to continue contributing, it would probably be reduced hours compared to what they contributed before, because they will be simultaneously doing a different job in order to eat.
- whatshisface 3y ago
  We have been told that RH's business model is selling support for a complex and constantly improving platform which is given away for free. Redhat is supposed to represent having someone to call when you don't want to bring in a consultant or hire a Debian expert, not a "seat license for Linux." Part of the difficulty that RH is facing is in trying to undo the expectations set by years and years of marketing - we were all told their business model was really in support.
  - jvanderbot 3y ago
    So is it not true that > There is CentOS Stream the binary deliverable, and CentOS Stream the source repository. The CentOS Stream gitlab source is where we build RHEL releases, in the open for all to see. To call RHEL “closed source” is categorically untrue and inaccurate. Where I could just go get their OS myself?
    - wmf 3y ago
      The source is in there somewhere. Finding the exact source that corresponds to, say, RHEL 9.3 is intentionally difficult.
- ilyt 3y ago
  >They gotta eat, how do you propose to feed them? They managed to do that just fine pre IBM acquisition
housemusicfan 3y ago
I always wrote off RMS as some sort of pedantic policy wonk in the argument of "free software" vs "open source". But now I realize he was right the whole time.
yesbut 3y ago
Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
c0l0 3y ago
Yet still correct. I am not a Red Hat user or customer (I've been living on Debian and using it at work for nearly 15 years now), but I can perfectly understand their decision to not play along so nicely with EL rebuilders any more. Look at Amazon, who, until very recently at least, simply took what RHEL provided, used that to lure customers into their "RHEL-compatible" cloud platform, far away from any need to compensate Red Hat in any way, and contributed back into RHEL and its upstreams... what exactly? I can see this only become worse with other cloud heavyweights throwing their 800+ pounds behind other EL downstreams (such as Microsoft with Alma Linux) to continue this play, which will bleed most of Red Hat's established revenue streams - and with it, RHEL itself, and all the projects Red Hat is funding development of today - dry in the long run. They are trying to stop the bleeding, and I sure hope they will succeed. There is a LOT of Red Hat-funded software in Debian that I actually depend on, and if Red Hat withers away, chances are those projects will not survive either.
- sroussey 3y ago
  Their true targets are Amazon and Oracle (you forgot the latter). That said, I think this is still insufficient to thwart them. I predict RedHat will wither away and get shut down in 10 years. Neither Amazon nor Oracle will pick up the slack. I would not bet on any projects that they sponsor. This is a death spasm. First of many.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  > Look at Amazon, who, until very recently at least, simply took what RHEL provided, used that to lure customers into their "RHEL-compatible" cloud platform, far away from any need to compensate Red Hat in any way, and contributed back into RHEL and its upstreams... what exactly? Yes, let's do look at Amazon! Because if RH is targeting Amazon Linux, they kind of missed the mark; Amazon, like Red Hat, now simply draws from Fedora as their upstream. All this does hurts is the old versions that were already on their way out.
  - bonzini 3y ago
    Obviously Amazon is not part of this, and neither is Facebook who uses CentOS Stream.
colechristensen 3y ago
“Tone deaf” is too charitable. The whole, literally entire point of open source is copying and redistributing. Open source is a threat to open source companies? Yeah kinda. Many of them make money selling things that are free and, as he says “not adding value”. Ironically Red Hat does add a lot of value but now instead of trying to sell that value they’re trying to put walls around what is free.

smoldesu 3y ago

It's not a GPL violation, but it's definitely a willful misinterpretation of it's goals. They're using a lot of mental gymnastics to try and make themselves out as the good guys here: > I feel that much of the anger from our recent decision around the downstream sources comes from either those who do not want to pay for the time, effort and resources going into RHEL or those who want to repackage it for their own profit. This demand for RHEL code is disingenuous. The demand for RHEL code is genuine. The expectation of a return on investment is the disingenuous part. GPL does not give you the right to deny others a genuine copy of your code. If someone pays for a RHEL license and then mirrors all the GPL packages, they would feasibly be complying with all the licenses in play. Putting up all these roadblocks and assuming self-righteousness is how the community loses trust in a platform like this.

dataangel 3y ago
They explicitly point out all of the code is still available.
- naikrovek 3y ago
  you can't expect someone who wants to be angry to voluntarily ingest information which would make them less angry, you know.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  If that were materially true, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

dataangel 3y ago

They gotta eat, how do you propose to feed them? I'm pretty sure if all paid Redhat developers stopped contributing it would be a massive blow to the Linux ecosystem that would not readily be replaced by volunteers. They employ people who work on every fundamental pillar of kernel space and userspace. Even if the fired devs wanted to continue contributing, it would probably be reduced hours compared to what they contributed before, because they will be simultaneously doing a different job in order to eat.

whatshisface 3y ago
We have been told that RH's business model is selling support for a complex and constantly improving platform which is given away for free. Redhat is supposed to represent having someone to call when you don't want to bring in a consultant or hire a Debian expert, not a "seat license for Linux." Part of the difficulty that RH is facing is in trying to undo the expectations set by years and years of marketing - we were all told their business model was really in support.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  So is it not true that > There is CentOS Stream the binary deliverable, and CentOS Stream the source repository. The CentOS Stream gitlab source is where we build RHEL releases, in the open for all to see. To call RHEL “closed source” is categorically untrue and inaccurate. Where I could just go get their OS myself?
  - wmf 3y ago
    The source is in there somewhere. Finding the exact source that corresponds to, say, RHEL 9.3 is intentionally difficult.
ilyt 3y ago
>They gotta eat, how do you propose to feed them? They managed to do that just fine pre IBM acquisition

housemusicfan 3y ago

I always wrote off RMS as some sort of pedantic policy wonk in the argument of "free software" vs "open source". But now I realize he was right the whole time.

yesbut 3y ago

Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

c0l0 3y ago

Yet still correct. I am not a Red Hat user or customer (I've been living on Debian and using it at work for nearly 15 years now), but I can perfectly understand their decision to not play along so nicely with EL rebuilders any more. Look at Amazon, who, until very recently at least, simply took what RHEL provided, used that to lure customers into their "RHEL-compatible" cloud platform, far away from any need to compensate Red Hat in any way, and contributed back into RHEL and its upstreams... what exactly? I can see this only become worse with other cloud heavyweights throwing their 800+ pounds behind other EL downstreams (such as Microsoft with Alma Linux) to continue this play, which will bleed most of Red Hat's established revenue streams - and with it, RHEL itself, and all the projects Red Hat is funding development of today - dry in the long run. They are trying to stop the bleeding, and I sure hope they will succeed. There is a LOT of Red Hat-funded software in Debian that I actually depend on, and if Red Hat withers away, chances are those projects will not survive either.

sroussey 3y ago
Their true targets are Amazon and Oracle (you forgot the latter). That said, I think this is still insufficient to thwart them. I predict RedHat will wither away and get shut down in 10 years. Neither Amazon nor Oracle will pick up the slack. I would not bet on any projects that they sponsor. This is a death spasm. First of many.
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> Look at Amazon, who, until very recently at least, simply took what RHEL provided, used that to lure customers into their "RHEL-compatible" cloud platform, far away from any need to compensate Red Hat in any way, and contributed back into RHEL and its upstreams... what exactly? Yes, let's do look at Amazon! Because if RH is targeting Amazon Linux, they kind of missed the mark; Amazon, like Red Hat, now simply draws from Fedora as their upstream. All this does hurts is the old versions that were already on their way out.
- bonzini 3y ago
  Obviously Amazon is not part of this, and neither is Facebook who uses CentOS Stream.

colechristensen 3y ago

“Tone deaf” is too charitable. The whole, literally entire point of open source is copying and redistributing. Open source is a threat to open source companies? Yeah kinda. Many of them make money selling things that are free and, as he says “not adding value”. Ironically Red Hat does add a lot of value but now instead of trying to sell that value they’re trying to put walls around what is free.