4 ms·

So, do you think your article is neutral reporting, or personal view/commentary? It seems to me it is the latter. That's OK, but then don't pretend you're just

by effie 3y ago

So, do you think your article is neutral reporting, or personal view/commentary? It seems to me it is the latter. That's OK, but then don't pretend you're just reporting and not playing a lawyer. Your last summary is pretty engaged and one-sided. > I see a lot of entitled angry people who haven't put real thought into what's going on and are angry because something they felt they were entitled to has been taken away... but they were never really entitled to it at all. That is pretty funny, because it works both ways, depending on your attitude to Red Hat :) In addition to reading what people/organizations wrote since the announcement, it's eye-opening to read also past sources on the Red Hat attitude, especially how Red Hat tolerated CentOS, then embraced it and supported it [Jim Whitehurst quotes], then killed it, and now that they themselves have caused original centos rebirth (alternatives like Rocky and Alma), they've decided to make problems and even call the people doing useful work for the user community "freeloaders". Jim Whitehurst quotes [1]: "CentOS is a derivative of RHEL that works for people that want a stable release without support," "If they don't see the value of our model then at least I'd rather have them on something similar to RHEL." "We don't view CentOS as a competitor. It's almost a complement," "Red Hat is great for production, but there are so many new innovations with OpenStack... There was nothing in the Red Hat family to support that. CentOS is moving faster and fills a gap in our portfolio of offerings." The old management got the culture and did not attack the community. The present management is the opposite, and I think it's dumb. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/red-hat-ceo-whitehurst-on-vmware-openstack-and-centos/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/red-hat-ceo-whitehurst-on-vmwa...

lproven 3y ago
It's analysis. It's my job. The position that "they can't do this, it's GPL!" is risible. It's stupid: it means those saying it have not thought about what a corporation worth tens of $billions has to do before such a move. Entitlement makes people stupid, though. Ask any person from a minority. However... > The old management got the culture and did not attack the community. The present management is the opposite, and I think it's dumb. Yeah, can't really argue with that. ;-)
- effie 3y ago
  > It's analysis. Analysis should involve also sources and argumentation. You stated a contentious belief as an obvious fact without source and argumentation. That's more like a commentary. > The position that "they can't do this, it's GPL!" is risible. It's stupid: it means those saying it have not thought about what a corporation worth tens of $billions has to do before such a move. That's your analysis? No it's not risible. Commentators do not usually claim this is their official legal position. It's an understandable emotional reaction to IBM/RedHat turning their back on decades of established mutual understanding with the community, which was that clones are fine. What's risible (or sad) is that some people, on both sides, including you, think their position is obviously correct and the other one is obviously wrong. None of the legal questions here are obvious. From a legal standpoint, the contract vs GPL issue is contentious, and if you do not see why, then you probably did not came across enough of various sources on the matter. There is a documented case in the past where Red Hat violated GPL as they threatened to revoke support to a customer using the GPL code if they won't pay royalties; the customer said go pound sand, and Red Hat ultimately backed down. The spook of GPL, or "no further restrictions" in particular, is strong, and Red Hat/IBM are not likely to want to test it in court.
  - lproven 3y ago
    > Analysis should involve also sources and argumentation. It did. > You stated a contentious belief as an obvious fact Hang on: where? > without source and argumentation. I disagree. > That's more like a commentary. Well, if you feel that a different name is more apt, I have no problem with that. > That's your analysis? Are you paying for this? No? Then no, it's not. It's a passing comment. > No it's not risible. I would not have said so if I didn't think it. That a corporation which over 20Y has gone from being worth very little to being worth tens of billions of dollars solely from selling contracts should not consider contract law or license terms before making such an important decision? To conclude that and maintain it seriously is laughable. Amusingly, RH itself has contacted me officially, as well as several members of staff unofficially, and ex members of staff privately, to thank me for a cogent analysis and being fair. OTOH, some developer types, both from inside and outside the company, are Very Angry with me on Twitter. So it goes. > you probably did not came across enough of various sources on the matter. It's entirely possible. OTOH one of my articles is a cited source here: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis... So... shrug

by effie 3y ago

lproven 3y ago

It's analysis. It's my job. The position that "they can't do this, it's GPL!" is risible. It's stupid: it means those saying it have not thought about what a corporation worth tens of $billions has to do before such a move. Entitlement makes people stupid, though. Ask any person from a minority. However... > The old management got the culture and did not attack the community. The present management is the opposite, and I think it's dumb. Yeah, can't really argue with that. ;-)

effie 3y ago
> It's analysis. Analysis should involve also sources and argumentation. You stated a contentious belief as an obvious fact without source and argumentation. That's more like a commentary. > The position that "they can't do this, it's GPL!" is risible. It's stupid: it means those saying it have not thought about what a corporation worth tens of $billions has to do before such a move. That's your analysis? No it's not risible. Commentators do not usually claim this is their official legal position. It's an understandable emotional reaction to IBM/RedHat turning their back on decades of established mutual understanding with the community, which was that clones are fine. What's risible (or sad) is that some people, on both sides, including you, think their position is obviously correct and the other one is obviously wrong. None of the legal questions here are obvious. From a legal standpoint, the contract vs GPL issue is contentious, and if you do not see why, then you probably did not came across enough of various sources on the matter. There is a documented case in the past where Red Hat violated GPL as they threatened to revoke support to a customer using the GPL code if they won't pay royalties; the customer said go pound sand, and Red Hat ultimately backed down. The spook of GPL, or "no further restrictions" in particular, is strong, and Red Hat/IBM are not likely to want to test it in court.
- lproven 3y ago
  > Analysis should involve also sources and argumentation. It did. > You stated a contentious belief as an obvious fact Hang on: where? > without source and argumentation. I disagree. > That's more like a commentary. Well, if you feel that a different name is more apt, I have no problem with that. > That's your analysis? Are you paying for this? No? Then no, it's not. It's a passing comment. > No it's not risible. I would not have said so if I didn't think it. That a corporation which over 20Y has gone from being worth very little to being worth tens of billions of dollars solely from selling contracts should not consider contract law or license terms before making such an important decision? To conclude that and maintain it seriously is laughable. Amusingly, RH itself has contacted me officially, as well as several members of staff unofficially, and ex members of staff privately, to thank me for a cogent analysis and being fair. OTOH, some developer types, both from inside and outside the company, are Very Angry with me on Twitter. So it goes. > you probably did not came across enough of various sources on the matter. It's entirely possible. OTOH one of my articles is a cited source here: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis... So... shrug