4 ms·

We have not yet heard anything from Oracle, which hopefully implies that these changes are not a problem. Alma had previously stated that Oracle would be an up

by chasil 3y ago

We have not yet heard anything from Oracle, which hopefully implies that these changes are not a problem. Alma had previously stated that Oracle would be an upstream source. "In the immediate term, our plan is to pull from CentOS Stream updates and Oracle Linux updates to ensure security patches continue to be released." https://almalinux.org/blog/impact-of-rhel-changes/ https://almalinux.org/blog/impact-of-rhel-changes/ Rocky has said that they have found "a path forward," but have not divulged it. https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/28/rocky_linux_rhel_ripples/?td=rt-3a https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/28/rocky_linux_rhel_ripp...

freedomben 3y ago
> We have not yet heard anything from Oracle, which hopefully implies that these changes are not a problem. Giant corps move slowly, and companies like Oracle will require official communication only, which moves even slower. I think it's too early to read anything into it.
highwind 3y ago
Rocky posted an update: https://rockylinux.org/news/keeping-open-source-open/ https://rockylinux.org/news/keeping-open-source-open/
- chasil 3y ago
  I just saw that. "Using the UBI image, it is easily possible to obtain Red Hat sources reliably and unencumbered... Another method... is pay-per-use public cloud instances. With this, anyone can spin up RHEL images in the cloud and thus obtain the source code for all packages and errata."
  - madars 3y ago
    I wonder how stable the cloud path is ... can RedHat have cloud vendors "voluntarily agree" to not spin up VMs for rebuilders? (Kinda like how subscribers "agree" that distributing GPL'd sources could put their subscription renewal in jeopardy.)
    - bakugo 3y ago
      >an RedHat have cloud vendors "voluntarily agree" to not spin up VMs for rebuilders? I mean, maybe, but does it matter? You only need one person with access to the code to distribute it to everyone else, and the identity of that one person doesn't have to be public, so I really don't see how Red Hat could ever hope to stop it.
      - davisr 3y ago
        Red Hat's Mike McGrath explains [1]: > That confusion manifested as accusations about us going closed-source and about alleged GPL violations. 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. CentOS Stream moves faster than RHEL, so it might not be on HEAD, but the code is there. If you can’t find it, it’s a bug – please let us know. [1]: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-source-response-gitcentosorg-changes https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-sour... He goes on [2]: > Anyone is allowed to create an account, get GPL'ed code and redistribute that code as much as they want according to the license. But they don't actually want the code because as I've said over and over, its not about the code (Free as in freedom). The code is out there (as proven by the fact that none of these rebuilders stopped nor will they stop) [2]: https://teddit.net/r/linux/comments/14l2t86/im_done_with_red_hat_enterprise_linux/jq4zgh6/?context=10 https://teddit.net/r/linux/comments/14l2t86/im_done_with_red... PS: How many people do you see linking to the actual Red Hat posts? I don't see many, which is why I think many comments on these threads are not made with honest intentions. The misinformation is rampant.
        tourmalinetaco 3y ago
        While it’s important to get both sides, RH’s actions are the exact opposite of what he’s saying there. And your belief that this somehow absolves them and that their anti-FLOSS actions are “misinformation” is incredibly disingenuous.
        3y ago
tmottabr 3y ago
Oracle will just keep getting the sources from whatever the easiest way is and wont give a damn about Red Hat ToS or EULA.. IBM can go after then in court if they want but they know that Oracle has pockets just as deep as IBM to fight them off.. I bet they will reach an agreement before this ever see a court room..

by chasil 3y ago

freedomben 3y ago

> We have not yet heard anything from Oracle, which hopefully implies that these changes are not a problem. Giant corps move slowly, and companies like Oracle will require official communication only, which moves even slower. I think it's too early to read anything into it.

highwind 3y ago

Rocky posted an update: https://rockylinux.org/news/keeping-open-source-open/ https://rockylinux.org/news/keeping-open-source-open/

chasil 3y ago
I just saw that. "Using the UBI image, it is easily possible to obtain Red Hat sources reliably and unencumbered... Another method... is pay-per-use public cloud instances. With this, anyone can spin up RHEL images in the cloud and thus obtain the source code for all packages and errata."
- madars 3y ago
  I wonder how stable the cloud path is ... can RedHat have cloud vendors "voluntarily agree" to not spin up VMs for rebuilders? (Kinda like how subscribers "agree" that distributing GPL'd sources could put their subscription renewal in jeopardy.)
  - bakugo 3y ago
    >an RedHat have cloud vendors "voluntarily agree" to not spin up VMs for rebuilders? I mean, maybe, but does it matter? You only need one person with access to the code to distribute it to everyone else, and the identity of that one person doesn't have to be public, so I really don't see how Red Hat could ever hope to stop it.
    - davisr 3y ago
      Red Hat's Mike McGrath explains [1]: > That confusion manifested as accusations about us going closed-source and about alleged GPL violations. 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. CentOS Stream moves faster than RHEL, so it might not be on HEAD, but the code is there. If you can’t find it, it’s a bug – please let us know. [1]: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-source-response-gitcentosorg-changes https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-sour... He goes on [2]: > Anyone is allowed to create an account, get GPL'ed code and redistribute that code as much as they want according to the license. But they don't actually want the code because as I've said over and over, its not about the code (Free as in freedom). The code is out there (as proven by the fact that none of these rebuilders stopped nor will they stop) [2]: https://teddit.net/r/linux/comments/14l2t86/im_done_with_red_hat_enterprise_linux/jq4zgh6/?context=10 https://teddit.net/r/linux/comments/14l2t86/im_done_with_red... PS: How many people do you see linking to the actual Red Hat posts? I don't see many, which is why I think many comments on these threads are not made with honest intentions. The misinformation is rampant.
      - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
        While it’s important to get both sides, RH’s actions are the exact opposite of what he’s saying there. And your belief that this somehow absolves them and that their anti-FLOSS actions are “misinformation” is incredibly disingenuous.
        3y ago

tmottabr 3y ago

Oracle will just keep getting the sources from whatever the easiest way is and wont give a damn about Red Hat ToS or EULA.. IBM can go after then in court if they want but they know that Oracle has pockets just as deep as IBM to fight them off.. I bet they will reach an agreement before this ever see a court room..