7 ms·

No it's mostly from people with a commercial interest. I can't take Rocky seriously when they are selling support for a thing they don't make, but demand it's r

No it's mostly from people with a commercial interest. I can't take Rocky seriously when they are selling support for a thing they don't make, but demand it's readily provided for free and no hassle.

geerlingguy 3y ago
According to Rocky Linux devs they aren't: https://forums.rockylinux.org/t/vague-accusations-about-shady-business-dealings/10505/6 https://forums.rockylinux.org/t/vague-accusations-about-shad...
- totallywrong 3y ago
  That's one guy saying he doesn't know what's up. I have no doubt he doesn't get paid. What counts though, is this: https://rockylinux.org/support https://rockylinux.org/support
  - tgmux 3y ago
    I'm one of the board members who replied on the forum thread. Rocky has never sold support or any other product. We make an OS for the community, that's it. The link to the support providers page simply is that, a list of other third party providers who offer paid support services.
    - totallywrong 3y ago
      So a "founding partner" is now a third party provider? Frame it as you may, but there is in fact commercial interest here. Even if Rocky were a separate entity, it depends on the sponsors selling support.
      - tgmux 3y ago
        Open source projects with sponsors and partners are pretty commonplace. Naturally, projects depend on having some support from others. You can frame that as a "commercial interest" but I maintain that is an inaccurate description of our sponsor and partner relationships. Rocky is absolutely a separate entity, both legally and in practice. In fact, the project and foundation board bylaws limit undue influence in a number of ways including maximum number of board seats per employer. We try to show our values both in our words and actions.
    - gbraad 3y ago
      So why is Rocky Linux as the 'project?' trying to indicate they still go to space: https://mastodon.social/@rockylinux@fosstodon.org/110624476511494685 https://mastodon.social/@rockylinux@fosstodon.org/1106244765..., referring to the 3 person seat, 2 year premium support 'they' sold to NASA? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36417968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36417968 https://sam.gov/opp/2e0365ce1e3c4c179b50fb15573d68e4/view https://sam.gov/opp/2e0365ce1e3c4c179b50fb15573d68e4/view
  - liamnal 3y ago
    I think you misread the post. He's clearly saying that he doesn't understand how the conclusion was drawn that there was anything shady going on. Willing to bet that the RESF builds rocky linux and CIQ does all the "shady" business dealings, which is out of their control.
- austhrow743 3y ago
  Does it matter if Rocky and CIQ are separate organisations? Would your or anyone elses opinion be different if the flow went client -> paid support -> Rocky rather than client -> paid support -> CIQ -> donation -> Rocky?
- gbraad 3y ago
  Developers? What do they develop? If they have upstream contributions great, but if they are just adjustments to their build pipeline they are not developing... That is tweaking. Read this post from Carl who works on CentOS and Streams: https://old.reddit.com/r/redhat/comments/14jq5i7/red_hats_commitment_to_open_source_a_response_to/jpoeunh/ https://old.reddit.com/r/redhat/comments/14jq5i7/red_hats_co...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Brian_K_White 3y ago
They demand that Redhat pay for what they take in the only coin that the original producer ever asked for. Redhat are the parasites, not Centos. If Redhat don't agree to the deal that the gpl makes, they are free not to use any gpl code. Trying to paywall gpl software is simply theft, and it's an incredible expression of the art, when something is free, and yet you still manage to steal it.
- davisr 3y ago
  > Trying to paywall gpl software is simply theft No, it's not, and I've seen your comments elsewhere. I don't think you even know what the "free" in "free software" means. You are COMPLETELY allowed to SELL free software. "Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can." See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html Red Hat is still distributing full corresponding source code to anyone they distribute a binary to. That is what the GPL class of licenses require, and that is what they are doing. You are free to get the software elsewhere. You don't have to get it from Red Hat. And if Red Hat wants to charge you for it, you can take it or leave it.
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    I never said you can't sell free software. You have picked the wrong argument to try to make thinking I conflate the frees. It's always been a fact that RH can't actually prevent a Centos-alike from reproducing the binaries from the same source, since RH are obligated to make the source available to anyone they hand a binary to. So you are right, they are still doing that. Congratulations on something that was never contested. The problem is simply that they are trying, and HAVE at least issued statements asserting policies that they don't actually have the right to make. For instance they said that users can not legally redistribute the source they have access to, because it has RH trademarks in it. Well, fortunately that doesn't actually fly. The GPL isn't nullified by just including your cooyrighted or trademarked logo into the package. If anything, it just creates a derivative work and you just gave away all rights to your logo. Presumably they were'nt that stupid and carefully only do that to software they wholly wrote themselves, or things that are MIT and not GPL.
coldtea 3y ago
>when they are selling support for a thing they don't make, but demand it's readily provided for free and no hassle So just like RedHat and IBM?
- gbraad 3y ago
  Just like Canonical asks for Ubuntu, and SUSE for SLE/Leap they make. Rocky/CIQ are not 'making' RHEL, ...
  - pritambarhate 3y ago
    There was time today's big distros were small and they mostly took from community, packaged it and sold support for it. Rocky is small now so needs to take more from community. If it becomes big later it can also contribute back. That's one of the benefits of open source. It helps small guys to get started and make it big. Once they become big, they can contribute back.
    - totallywrong 3y ago
      But that's the thing, Rocky simply can't grow in that way, because they're not trying to do their own thing, they just aim for bug-for-bug compatibility. They are not pushing out new code and helping advance the ecosystem.
      - titannet 3y ago
        But that's a large part of the appeal. "Binary compatible with RHEL" sells Rocky, not "another Linux".
        piaste 3y ago
        Regardless of the reasons, Rocky Linux does not contribute a single line of useful code to the world. Red Hat has benefited from previous contributors, but then added a ton of open source work of their own. RH are open source contributors; Rocky Linux are mere users.

No it's mostly from people with a commercial interest. I can't take Rocky seriously when they are selling support for a thing they don't make, but demand it's readily provided for free and no hassle.

geerlingguy 3y ago

According to Rocky Linux devs they aren't: https://forums.rockylinux.org/t/vague-accusations-about-shady-business-dealings/10505/6 https://forums.rockylinux.org/t/vague-accusations-about-shad...

totallywrong 3y ago
That's one guy saying he doesn't know what's up. I have no doubt he doesn't get paid. What counts though, is this: https://rockylinux.org/support https://rockylinux.org/support
- tgmux 3y ago
  I'm one of the board members who replied on the forum thread. Rocky has never sold support or any other product. We make an OS for the community, that's it. The link to the support providers page simply is that, a list of other third party providers who offer paid support services.
  - totallywrong 3y ago
    So a "founding partner" is now a third party provider? Frame it as you may, but there is in fact commercial interest here. Even if Rocky were a separate entity, it depends on the sponsors selling support.
    - tgmux 3y ago
      Open source projects with sponsors and partners are pretty commonplace. Naturally, projects depend on having some support from others. You can frame that as a "commercial interest" but I maintain that is an inaccurate description of our sponsor and partner relationships. Rocky is absolutely a separate entity, both legally and in practice. In fact, the project and foundation board bylaws limit undue influence in a number of ways including maximum number of board seats per employer. We try to show our values both in our words and actions.
  - gbraad 3y ago
    So why is Rocky Linux as the 'project?' trying to indicate they still go to space: https://mastodon.social/@rockylinux@fosstodon.org/110624476511494685 https://mastodon.social/@rockylinux@fosstodon.org/1106244765..., referring to the 3 person seat, 2 year premium support 'they' sold to NASA? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36417968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36417968 https://sam.gov/opp/2e0365ce1e3c4c179b50fb15573d68e4/view https://sam.gov/opp/2e0365ce1e3c4c179b50fb15573d68e4/view
- liamnal 3y ago
  I think you misread the post. He's clearly saying that he doesn't understand how the conclusion was drawn that there was anything shady going on. Willing to bet that the RESF builds rocky linux and CIQ does all the "shady" business dealings, which is out of their control.
austhrow743 3y ago
Does it matter if Rocky and CIQ are separate organisations? Would your or anyone elses opinion be different if the flow went client -> paid support -> Rocky rather than client -> paid support -> CIQ -> donation -> Rocky?
gbraad 3y ago
Developers? What do they develop? If they have upstream contributions great, but if they are just adjustments to their build pipeline they are not developing... That is tweaking. Read this post from Carl who works on CentOS and Streams: https://old.reddit.com/r/redhat/comments/14jq5i7/red_hats_commitment_to_open_source_a_response_to/jpoeunh/ https://old.reddit.com/r/redhat/comments/14jq5i7/red_hats_co...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Brian_K_White 3y ago

They demand that Redhat pay for what they take in the only coin that the original producer ever asked for. Redhat are the parasites, not Centos. If Redhat don't agree to the deal that the gpl makes, they are free not to use any gpl code. Trying to paywall gpl software is simply theft, and it's an incredible expression of the art, when something is free, and yet you still manage to steal it.

davisr 3y ago
> Trying to paywall gpl software is simply theft No, it's not, and I've seen your comments elsewhere. I don't think you even know what the "free" in "free software" means. You are COMPLETELY allowed to SELL free software. "Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can." See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html Red Hat is still distributing full corresponding source code to anyone they distribute a binary to. That is what the GPL class of licenses require, and that is what they are doing. You are free to get the software elsewhere. You don't have to get it from Red Hat. And if Red Hat wants to charge you for it, you can take it or leave it.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  I never said you can't sell free software. You have picked the wrong argument to try to make thinking I conflate the frees. It's always been a fact that RH can't actually prevent a Centos-alike from reproducing the binaries from the same source, since RH are obligated to make the source available to anyone they hand a binary to. So you are right, they are still doing that. Congratulations on something that was never contested. The problem is simply that they are trying, and HAVE at least issued statements asserting policies that they don't actually have the right to make. For instance they said that users can not legally redistribute the source they have access to, because it has RH trademarks in it. Well, fortunately that doesn't actually fly. The GPL isn't nullified by just including your cooyrighted or trademarked logo into the package. If anything, it just creates a derivative work and you just gave away all rights to your logo. Presumably they were'nt that stupid and carefully only do that to software they wholly wrote themselves, or things that are MIT and not GPL.

coldtea 3y ago

>when they are selling support for a thing they don't make, but demand it's readily provided for free and no hassle So just like RedHat and IBM?

gbraad 3y ago
Just like Canonical asks for Ubuntu, and SUSE for SLE/Leap they make. Rocky/CIQ are not 'making' RHEL, ...
- pritambarhate 3y ago
  There was time today's big distros were small and they mostly took from community, packaged it and sold support for it. Rocky is small now so needs to take more from community. If it becomes big later it can also contribute back. That's one of the benefits of open source. It helps small guys to get started and make it big. Once they become big, they can contribute back.
  - totallywrong 3y ago
    But that's the thing, Rocky simply can't grow in that way, because they're not trying to do their own thing, they just aim for bug-for-bug compatibility. They are not pushing out new code and helping advance the ecosystem.
    - titannet 3y ago
      But that's a large part of the appeal. "Binary compatible with RHEL" sells Rocky, not "another Linux".
      - piaste 3y ago
        Regardless of the reasons, Rocky Linux does not contribute a single line of useful code to the world. Red Hat has benefited from previous contributors, but then added a ton of open source work of their own. RH are open source contributors; Rocky Linux are mere users.