4 ms·

>So recently Red Hat/IBM made a business decision to limit their customers to those who would buy a license from them for every single system that would run RHE

>So recently Red Hat/IBM made a business decision to limit their customers to those who would buy a license from them for every single system that would run RHEL and only distribute their source-code and the information necessary on how to build that distribution to those customers. Is that what the contract says? Does it say that if a customer installs CentOS, or some RedHat downstream, that they are now in breach? I thought it was about distribution of source code. What is going on? Also is RedHat fine if the other systems run a different linux like Debian? Where's the line?

wmf 3y ago
There are two issues. 1. Some customers used to buy one RHEL license and install 1,000 copies of RHEL. That loophole was closed years ago. It doesn't prevent using CentOS. 2. Red Hat has to give you RHEL source code but if they do they'll also cancel your subscription. This makes it harder for Alma/Rocky to get RHEL source code. That's the new controversy.
- dralley 3y ago
  >1. Some customers used to buy one RHEL license and install 1,000 copies of RHEL. That loophole was closed years ago. It doesn't prevent using CentOS. It's not really closed, because you also have users buying one RHEL license and using 20,000 clone deployments, and then reporting any issues they see on clones against their one copy of RHEL, demanding customer support for dozens of issues against one RHEL license.
  - AlotOfReading 3y ago
    That's exactly why RH does license audits and has for years. It doesn't explain the recent changes people find objectionable.
    - cyberpunk 3y ago
      Have you ever been through one of those? How does it work? If a vendor turned up to my business and demanded access to my systems for some kind of audit I would tell them to go and fsck themselves, they wouldn't get past reception. How is it legal? Is it just an American thing?
      - op00to 3y ago
        It's legal and customary in every place Red Hat does business. Have you ever actually worked with an enterprise software vendor before? You signed an agreement with Red Hat to allow them full access to all your systems to audit usage. You will be in breach of contract, and you'll get to meet Red Hat's lawyers.
        dralley 3y ago
        The point is, license audits suck for everyone and present their own kinds of reputational risks (e.g. Oracle), and making them less necessary by using other approaches towards the problem is rational from Red Hat's perspective
      - lelanthran 3y ago
        If you tell them that they could simply decide to never sell anything to you again, including support contracts for the upcoming year. I can guarantee that will hurt you more than it hurts them.
- op00to 3y ago
  > 2. Red Hat has to give you RHEL source code but if they do they'll also cancel your subscription. uh, no.
dralley 3y ago
>Is that what the contract says? Does it say that if a customer installs CentOS, or some RedHat downstream, that they are now in breach Nobody is arguing that it's in breach, he's just explaining why a business motivation might exist to differentiate RHEL and RHEL-clones. It's certainly in breach of the "spirit" of the agreement in a much more direct way than the arguments people are making about the GPL.
op00to 3y ago
> Is that what the contract says? Does it say that if a customer installs CentOS, or some RedHat downstream, that they are now in breach. Of course not. You can read the agreement yourself. [1] Look at the sction "Unauthorized Use of Subscription Services". [1] https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Appendix-1-Global-English-20230620.pdf https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Appendix-1-Global-English-20...

wmf 3y ago

There are two issues. 1. Some customers used to buy one RHEL license and install 1,000 copies of RHEL. That loophole was closed years ago. It doesn't prevent using CentOS. 2. Red Hat has to give you RHEL source code but if they do they'll also cancel your subscription. This makes it harder for Alma/Rocky to get RHEL source code. That's the new controversy.

dralley 3y ago
>1. Some customers used to buy one RHEL license and install 1,000 copies of RHEL. That loophole was closed years ago. It doesn't prevent using CentOS. It's not really closed, because you also have users buying one RHEL license and using 20,000 clone deployments, and then reporting any issues they see on clones against their one copy of RHEL, demanding customer support for dozens of issues against one RHEL license.
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  That's exactly why RH does license audits and has for years. It doesn't explain the recent changes people find objectionable.
  - cyberpunk 3y ago
    Have you ever been through one of those? How does it work? If a vendor turned up to my business and demanded access to my systems for some kind of audit I would tell them to go and fsck themselves, they wouldn't get past reception. How is it legal? Is it just an American thing?
    - op00to 3y ago
      It's legal and customary in every place Red Hat does business. Have you ever actually worked with an enterprise software vendor before? You signed an agreement with Red Hat to allow them full access to all your systems to audit usage. You will be in breach of contract, and you'll get to meet Red Hat's lawyers.
      - dralley 3y ago
        The point is, license audits suck for everyone and present their own kinds of reputational risks (e.g. Oracle), and making them less necessary by using other approaches towards the problem is rational from Red Hat's perspective
    - lelanthran 3y ago
      If you tell them that they could simply decide to never sell anything to you again, including support contracts for the upcoming year. I can guarantee that will hurt you more than it hurts them.
op00to 3y ago
> 2. Red Hat has to give you RHEL source code but if they do they'll also cancel your subscription. uh, no.

dralley 3y ago

>Is that what the contract says? Does it say that if a customer installs CentOS, or some RedHat downstream, that they are now in breach Nobody is arguing that it's in breach, he's just explaining why a business motivation might exist to differentiate RHEL and RHEL-clones. It's certainly in breach of the "spirit" of the agreement in a much more direct way than the arguments people are making about the GPL.

op00to 3y ago

> Is that what the contract says? Does it say that if a customer installs CentOS, or some RedHat downstream, that they are now in breach. Of course not. You can read the agreement yourself. [1] Look at the sction "Unauthorized Use of Subscription Services". [1] https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Appendix-1-Global-English-20230620.pdf https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Appendix-1-Global-English-20...