7 ms·

Red Hat's Mike McGrath explains [1]: > Anyone is allowed to create an account, get GPL'ed code and redistribute that code as much as they want according to the

by davisr 3y ago

Red Hat's Mike McGrath explains [1]: > 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) [1]: 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... It's clear that all the misinformation about RHEL, misinterpretations of the GPL, et al. are not actually about those issues. There is a concerted effort to attack Red Hat. Become familiar with the "Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation" [2] and you will see them everywhere. [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20221215015113/https://pastebin.com/raw/irj4Fyd5 https://web.archive.org/web/20221215015113/https://pastebin....

tourmalinetaco 3y ago
> There is a concerted effort to attack Red Hat. Red Hat is the one who put it behind a wall to begin with. You reap what you sow.
- davisr 3y ago
  They haven't put anything behind a wall. You want CentOS Stream and RHEL source code? Then go get it! Here it is! [1] [1]: https://git.centos.org/ https://git.centos.org/ When you buy RHEL, you even get the entire source code on a DVD for the exact binary distribution that you download.
  - grosswait 3y ago
    https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-stream https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-s...
  - creatonez 3y ago
    The repository you linked previously contained RHEL source code, but it is no longer being updated as of a few weeks ago. This is the entire thing being discussed. Really weird for you to be grandstanding about how misinformation is bad, while spreading it yourself.
    - davisr 3y ago
      Sorry, here you go [1]. Last activity 28 minutes ago. [1]: https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream Additional docs: https://docs.centos.org/en-US/stream-contrib/techinfo/buildsystem/#_gitlab https://docs.centos.org/en-US/stream-contrib/techinfo/builds...
      - creatonez 3y ago
        Close, but this is not RHEL source code.
        davisr 3y ago
        Yes, it is now. From Red Hat's original June 21 article [1] (they even put it in bold). > CentOS Stream will now be the sole repository for public RHEL-related source code releases. RHEL is in there somewhere, even if a user has to pick specific commits for it. Furthermore, for the totally-bundled source for the exact binary RHEL release (which Red Hat only is required by the GPL to give to their customers, whom they already gave a binary to): > For Red Hat customers and partners, source code will remain available via the Red Hat Customer Portal. [1]: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-stream https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-s...
        creatonez 3y ago
        > RHEL is in there somewhere, even if a user has to pick specific commits for it. This is not true. There are Red Hat package versions that do not correspond to any commits in that repository. For example, if a package gets updated from 1.1.0 to 1.2.0 in CentOS Stream, then later a patch is released (lets say, 1.1.1, or 1.1.0-2) then that patch will never show up in this repository. In such a situation, the 1.2 version will probably get an equivalent patch eventually, but not the 1.1 version. Others have pointed out that embargoed security patches are not pushed to CentOS Stream until the embargo ends, and often at the end of the embargo they still don't push it until several weeks later, due to RH developers forgetting to do so.
detaro 3y ago
Of course claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is part of a concerted attack campaign is also an excellent example of those rules.
- davisr 3y ago
  > claiming I'm not claiming. I am linking to relevant sources directly from Red Hat staff. That is an authoritative source. > that everyone No, not everyone, I never said that, and you misrepresenting what I said and distracting from the main issue.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - starttoaster 3y ago
    It's not obvious to me that the user you're replying to believed that these were your opinions. It seemed more obvious to me that they were replying indirectly to the comments made by the Red Hat staff member. But now that you've gotten to the point of having your own opinion and take: what is "the main issue" as you've mentioned here?
    - davisr 3y ago
      The main issue is that people in this thread, and elsewhere in related threads, are coming to believe that Red Hat is somehow doing something illegal or improper -- due to inaccurate and misleading headlines, and misinterpretations of the requirements of GPL licenses. Which, of course, is untrue since Red Hat has stated several times, in the links I've posted above, that Red Hat are (a) STILL providing complete corresponding source code, which one will still receive when they are distributed a binary by Red Hat, and (b) FULLY complying with the terms of GPL and other FLOSS licenses. These are the two issues that people are misrepresenting, by saying either that Red Hat is (a) locking-down or otherwise disallowing access to complete corresponding source for binary recipients, which is untrue, or (b) that Red Hat is not complying with the FLOSS licenses their software are used under, which is also not true. The next issue that is raised, one that was mentioned by the Software Freedom Conservancy [1], is that Red Hat is somehow extorting their customers by either making them choose between exercising their GPL rights, or continuing to receive support. [1]: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis... Red Hat is free to terminate support with any of their customers--that is not a GPL issue. The transaction the GPL covers is: Red Hat gives (or sells) the user a binary, the user can request the complete corresponding source code (not need to be immediately provided with), and once requested then Red Hat must provide that code. That is the end of the transaction. The GPL does not cover any additional period, or force Red Hat to continue business with a particular user.
luma 3y ago
What a ridiculous take. There is a concerted attack on RH, but that’s because RH is making a concerted attack on open source and was hoping we’d all just stand by and let it happen.
- davisr 3y ago
  Will you please explain how Red Hat is making a concerted attack on open source?
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    2023 is the year of the freeloaders finally getting demands to pay up or GTFO.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    as a copyleft supporter + never-been-a-customer, what I see is .. there was an existing agreement with the "community" that spread across access, updates, license terms for the code, license terms for market exchange of services. IBM purchased RH and are now changing those relationships (maybe) staying within bounds of the code side, but definitely changes to the other parts. I guess the there is money that can be extracted from customers for formal business agreements, because the companies that themselves have contractual relationships with their own customers, care about having paperwork intact; similarly with insurance or compliance contracts. At the same time, this is a squeeze play against at least two downstream distros, Alma and Rocky. So the attack is not complete, nor all in one place. I am interested to hear if this is accurate, from others with more skin in the game.
- jzb 3y ago
  Hardly. Making RHEL harder to clone isn’t an attack on open source. It may be Red Hat is slightly less open, but calling it a concerted attack on open source is silly. RHEL isn’t a project. It’s a product. All the actual work is still happening + being released (albeit less conveniently & not as timely). If Red Hat comes up with a fantastic new feature in RHEL the source will still be released - but it’s up to others to reassemble it. That’s hardly a concerted attack on open source. It’s a jab at copycats.
burnte 3y ago
> There is a concerted effort to attack Red Hat. Not really, RedHat started this. They're in the enshittening phase now. Management has run out of ideas for real growth, so they are instead squeezing the customer base.
- kriberg 3y ago
  I'd be suprised if OpenShift wasn't making copious amounts of money for redhat.
  - burnte 3y ago
    Yeah, but not many companies are like MS and let one or two cash cows carry all the other ambitions, many companies prefer each unit be profitable. OpenShift might be printing money, but clearly the RHEL division isn't.

by davisr 3y ago

tourmalinetaco 3y ago

> There is a concerted effort to attack Red Hat. Red Hat is the one who put it behind a wall to begin with. You reap what you sow.

davisr 3y ago
They haven't put anything behind a wall. You want CentOS Stream and RHEL source code? Then go get it! Here it is! [1] [1]: https://git.centos.org/ https://git.centos.org/ When you buy RHEL, you even get the entire source code on a DVD for the exact binary distribution that you download.
- grosswait 3y ago
  https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-stream https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-s...
- creatonez 3y ago
  The repository you linked previously contained RHEL source code, but it is no longer being updated as of a few weeks ago. This is the entire thing being discussed. Really weird for you to be grandstanding about how misinformation is bad, while spreading it yourself.
  - davisr 3y ago
    Sorry, here you go [1]. Last activity 28 minutes ago. [1]: https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream Additional docs: https://docs.centos.org/en-US/stream-contrib/techinfo/buildsystem/#_gitlab https://docs.centos.org/en-US/stream-contrib/techinfo/builds...
    - creatonez 3y ago
      Close, but this is not RHEL source code.
      - davisr 3y ago
        Yes, it is now. From Red Hat's original June 21 article [1] (they even put it in bold). > CentOS Stream will now be the sole repository for public RHEL-related source code releases. RHEL is in there somewhere, even if a user has to pick specific commits for it. Furthermore, for the totally-bundled source for the exact binary RHEL release (which Red Hat only is required by the GPL to give to their customers, whom they already gave a binary to): > For Red Hat customers and partners, source code will remain available via the Red Hat Customer Portal. [1]: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-stream https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-s...
        creatonez 3y ago
        > RHEL is in there somewhere, even if a user has to pick specific commits for it. This is not true. There are Red Hat package versions that do not correspond to any commits in that repository. For example, if a package gets updated from 1.1.0 to 1.2.0 in CentOS Stream, then later a patch is released (lets say, 1.1.1, or 1.1.0-2) then that patch will never show up in this repository. In such a situation, the 1.2 version will probably get an equivalent patch eventually, but not the 1.1 version. Others have pointed out that embargoed security patches are not pushed to CentOS Stream until the embargo ends, and often at the end of the embargo they still don't push it until several weeks later, due to RH developers forgetting to do so.

detaro 3y ago

Of course claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is part of a concerted attack campaign is also an excellent example of those rules.

davisr 3y ago
> claiming I'm not claiming. I am linking to relevant sources directly from Red Hat staff. That is an authoritative source. > that everyone No, not everyone, I never said that, and you misrepresenting what I said and distracting from the main issue.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- starttoaster 3y ago
  It's not obvious to me that the user you're replying to believed that these were your opinions. It seemed more obvious to me that they were replying indirectly to the comments made by the Red Hat staff member. But now that you've gotten to the point of having your own opinion and take: what is "the main issue" as you've mentioned here?
  - davisr 3y ago
    The main issue is that people in this thread, and elsewhere in related threads, are coming to believe that Red Hat is somehow doing something illegal or improper -- due to inaccurate and misleading headlines, and misinterpretations of the requirements of GPL licenses. Which, of course, is untrue since Red Hat has stated several times, in the links I've posted above, that Red Hat are (a) STILL providing complete corresponding source code, which one will still receive when they are distributed a binary by Red Hat, and (b) FULLY complying with the terms of GPL and other FLOSS licenses. These are the two issues that people are misrepresenting, by saying either that Red Hat is (a) locking-down or otherwise disallowing access to complete corresponding source for binary recipients, which is untrue, or (b) that Red Hat is not complying with the FLOSS licenses their software are used under, which is also not true. The next issue that is raised, one that was mentioned by the Software Freedom Conservancy [1], is that Red Hat is somehow extorting their customers by either making them choose between exercising their GPL rights, or continuing to receive support. [1]: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis... Red Hat is free to terminate support with any of their customers--that is not a GPL issue. The transaction the GPL covers is: Red Hat gives (or sells) the user a binary, the user can request the complete corresponding source code (not need to be immediately provided with), and once requested then Red Hat must provide that code. That is the end of the transaction. The GPL does not cover any additional period, or force Red Hat to continue business with a particular user.

luma 3y ago

What a ridiculous take. There is a concerted attack on RH, but that’s because RH is making a concerted attack on open source and was hoping we’d all just stand by and let it happen.

davisr 3y ago
Will you please explain how Red Hat is making a concerted attack on open source?
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  2023 is the year of the freeloaders finally getting demands to pay up or GTFO.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  as a copyleft supporter + never-been-a-customer, what I see is .. there was an existing agreement with the "community" that spread across access, updates, license terms for the code, license terms for market exchange of services. IBM purchased RH and are now changing those relationships (maybe) staying within bounds of the code side, but definitely changes to the other parts. I guess the there is money that can be extracted from customers for formal business agreements, because the companies that themselves have contractual relationships with their own customers, care about having paperwork intact; similarly with insurance or compliance contracts. At the same time, this is a squeeze play against at least two downstream distros, Alma and Rocky. So the attack is not complete, nor all in one place. I am interested to hear if this is accurate, from others with more skin in the game.
jzb 3y ago
Hardly. Making RHEL harder to clone isn’t an attack on open source. It may be Red Hat is slightly less open, but calling it a concerted attack on open source is silly. RHEL isn’t a project. It’s a product. All the actual work is still happening + being released (albeit less conveniently & not as timely). If Red Hat comes up with a fantastic new feature in RHEL the source will still be released - but it’s up to others to reassemble it. That’s hardly a concerted attack on open source. It’s a jab at copycats.

burnte 3y ago

> There is a concerted effort to attack Red Hat. Not really, RedHat started this. They're in the enshittening phase now. Management has run out of ideas for real growth, so they are instead squeezing the customer base.

kriberg 3y ago
I'd be suprised if OpenShift wasn't making copious amounts of money for redhat.
- burnte 3y ago
  Yeah, but not many companies are like MS and let one or two cash cows carry all the other ambitions, many companies prefer each unit be profitable. OpenShift might be printing money, but clearly the RHEL division isn't.