3 ms·

It seems pretty mad. Apparently Redhat doing all of their work as GPL'ed OpenSource and upstreaming everything so that everyone benefits, and anyone can take th

It seems pretty mad. Apparently Redhat doing all of their work as GPL'ed OpenSource and upstreaming everything so that everyone benefits, and anyone can take the software and build their own, sell it, etc, isn't good enough. Is literally the only thing that would make people happy is to give away RHEL for free for people to run their production servers on?

geerlingguy 3y ago
Part of the open source social contract is downstreaming too. You can't just take, promise to give back, and then hoard what you've built.
- happymellon 3y ago
  There is no hording though. What changes have they made to RHEL that isn't available?
- mackca 3y ago
  downstreaming ? How is the open source social contract anymore than making source code available?
  - geerlingguy 3y ago
    That's what I mean. Not putting up a EULA dam. They don't have to build CentOS or assist anyone, but they can't block the code from flowing downhill.
    - mackca 3y ago
      According to Red Hat the source of RHEL is publicly available on CentOS Stream Gitlab, without a EULA.
      - bubblethink 3y ago
        It's the upstream source, not the source used to build RHEL. RHEL is downstream of CentOS stream. Much like linux kernel's source is available, it does not help you much.
        worthless-trash 3y ago
        However, it is "exactly" that code, isnt it.. thats been my understanding.
        bubblethink 3y ago
        It may incidentally be in some cases, but isn't guaranteed to be. Things don't necessarily flow back up from RHEL to CentOS stream, and even if they do in a general sense, it may not be sufficient to build the exact same tag that RHEL uses. Someone else mentioned that they were not able to build RHEL packages from CentOS stream.
        ungamedplayer 3y ago
        Do you have an example of this, since the project I work on definitely has its code synced to gitlab.. I believe that would be actuall evidence of gpl non compliance, not this dismisive current interpretation that people have. I don't think that most people who commented have a subscription.
        bubblethink 3y ago
        Pushing things back to CentOS stream is not a requirement of GPL. GPL's role ends once RHEL customers get the source. Do you mean evidence of CentOS stream not being enough ? The post talks about it. Rocky needs to collate sources from several places now to create 1:1 RHEL rebuilds.
        worthless-trash 3y ago

geerlingguy 3y ago

Part of the open source social contract is downstreaming too. You can't just take, promise to give back, and then hoard what you've built.

happymellon 3y ago
There is no hording though. What changes have they made to RHEL that isn't available?
mackca 3y ago
downstreaming ? How is the open source social contract anymore than making source code available?
- geerlingguy 3y ago
  That's what I mean. Not putting up a EULA dam. They don't have to build CentOS or assist anyone, but they can't block the code from flowing downhill.
  - mackca 3y ago
    According to Red Hat the source of RHEL is publicly available on CentOS Stream Gitlab, without a EULA.
    - bubblethink 3y ago
      It's the upstream source, not the source used to build RHEL. RHEL is downstream of CentOS stream. Much like linux kernel's source is available, it does not help you much.
      - worthless-trash 3y ago
        However, it is "exactly" that code, isnt it.. thats been my understanding.
        bubblethink 3y ago
        It may incidentally be in some cases, but isn't guaranteed to be. Things don't necessarily flow back up from RHEL to CentOS stream, and even if they do in a general sense, it may not be sufficient to build the exact same tag that RHEL uses. Someone else mentioned that they were not able to build RHEL packages from CentOS stream.
        ungamedplayer 3y ago
        Do you have an example of this, since the project I work on definitely has its code synced to gitlab.. I believe that would be actuall evidence of gpl non compliance, not this dismisive current interpretation that people have. I don't think that most people who commented have a subscription.
        bubblethink 3y ago
        Pushing things back to CentOS stream is not a requirement of GPL. GPL's role ends once RHEL customers get the source. Do you mean evidence of CentOS stream not being enough ? The post talks about it. Rocky needs to collate sources from several places now to create 1:1 RHEL rebuilds.
        worthless-trash 3y ago