3 ms·

> They strictly want to take what Red Hat sells and rebuild and distribute it for free. I think this is an unfair framing. Rather, they want to take all the G

by tux1968 3y ago

> They strictly want to take what Red Hat sells and rebuild and distribute it for free. I think this is an unfair framing. Rather, they want to take all the GPL source code that Red Hat is obligated to make available, and distribute it freely. They believe this is in accordance with both the law and the software license that Red Hat agreed to, when using it as a basis for their business in the first place. Personally, I don't have a dog in the fight, or a strong opinion on the matter. But we should at least fairly represent each parties position.

dralley 3y ago
All of the source code is already available, in CentOS Stream, from which RHEL is built in the first place. What they want to do, is do an exact rebuild of RHEL without having to go through the effort of putting the distribution together themselves, matching the versions that are used in a particular version of RHEL against what is available via CentOS Stream.
- skybrian 3y ago
  And that's perfectly fine under open source licenses. You are allowed to build and redistribute your own binaries. That's both spirit and letter. Don't fall for people making up additional terms that aren't in the license.
  - dralley 3y ago
    It's perfectly fine but it shouldn't be cast as "freeing the source code, unjustly locked down by Red Hat", because it's not.
    - tux1968 3y ago
      But that is pretty much exactly the contention of Rocky Linux. Well actually, they don't explicitly accuse Red Hat of unjustly locking down the source code, just that there are now some extra hurdles required to legally obtain it. They do contend, that they are exercising their legal rights as enumerated in the software license that Red Hat agreed to, when it started to use and freely redistribute the work of others. If you are denying they have this legal right, then I believe it's on you to explain and justify this legal position, rather than just asserting it as fact.
      - dralley 3y ago
        What I am saying is that the code is not "locked down" in any meaningful sense, that it is already open source, and therefore that Rocky Linux isn't "freeing" it. I'm not making any statement about their legal rights. As I commented elsewhere, "RHEL" isn't GPL licensed, the kernel is, and glibc is, and systemd is, etc. Individually. The sources for all of those packages, individually, are available via CentOS Stream just as they ever were - alongside the sources for packages that aren't GPL licensed, for which there is not actually a legal requirement to distribute sources. What Red Hat has stopped doing is providing a git repo containing the exact combination of package sources which collectively make up one particular version of RHEL. Instead, all of the sources are still available, but if you want to rebuild the entire distro you need to match up the particular versions with RHEL. And that's exactly what Alma Linux does.
        tux1968 3y ago
        Okay, so the source is 100% freely available. And with that source, and nothing else, you are able to regenerate RHEL binaries. Rocky Linux contends they are not doing anything illegal in the methods used to obtain the source code (ie. legally renting an RHEL VM from any number of providers, and downloading the SRPMS). Maybe Red Hat wishes this was illegal, but I still haven't heard anyone claim that it is.
        dralley 3y ago
        I'm not claiming that either, so what's your point. I'm just saying that the way Rocky presents it is mostly marketing. The cleverness is to save themselves effort, not to do something they weren't being allowed to do previously.
        tux1968 3y ago
        I'm not sure why you weighed in on the subject then, other than to advance your own personal preference. At least, I mistook it as an objection to Rocky Linux's very existence. As long as what they're doing is legal, then let them be. Each distribution will rise and fall based on the value it provides.
    - tremon 3y ago
      The RHEL subscription license comes with a stipulation that the recipient does not distribute the RHEL sources further, under pain of license termination. I'd call that unjustly locked down by Red Hat.

dralley 3y ago

All of the source code is already available, in CentOS Stream, from which RHEL is built in the first place. What they want to do, is do an exact rebuild of RHEL without having to go through the effort of putting the distribution together themselves, matching the versions that are used in a particular version of RHEL against what is available via CentOS Stream.

skybrian 3y ago
And that's perfectly fine under open source licenses. You are allowed to build and redistribute your own binaries. That's both spirit and letter. Don't fall for people making up additional terms that aren't in the license.
- dralley 3y ago
  It's perfectly fine but it shouldn't be cast as "freeing the source code, unjustly locked down by Red Hat", because it's not.
  - tux1968 3y ago
    But that is pretty much exactly the contention of Rocky Linux. Well actually, they don't explicitly accuse Red Hat of unjustly locking down the source code, just that there are now some extra hurdles required to legally obtain it. They do contend, that they are exercising their legal rights as enumerated in the software license that Red Hat agreed to, when it started to use and freely redistribute the work of others. If you are denying they have this legal right, then I believe it's on you to explain and justify this legal position, rather than just asserting it as fact.
    - dralley 3y ago
      What I am saying is that the code is not "locked down" in any meaningful sense, that it is already open source, and therefore that Rocky Linux isn't "freeing" it. I'm not making any statement about their legal rights. As I commented elsewhere, "RHEL" isn't GPL licensed, the kernel is, and glibc is, and systemd is, etc. Individually. The sources for all of those packages, individually, are available via CentOS Stream just as they ever were - alongside the sources for packages that aren't GPL licensed, for which there is not actually a legal requirement to distribute sources. What Red Hat has stopped doing is providing a git repo containing the exact combination of package sources which collectively make up one particular version of RHEL. Instead, all of the sources are still available, but if you want to rebuild the entire distro you need to match up the particular versions with RHEL. And that's exactly what Alma Linux does.
      - tux1968 3y ago
        Okay, so the source is 100% freely available. And with that source, and nothing else, you are able to regenerate RHEL binaries. Rocky Linux contends they are not doing anything illegal in the methods used to obtain the source code (ie. legally renting an RHEL VM from any number of providers, and downloading the SRPMS). Maybe Red Hat wishes this was illegal, but I still haven't heard anyone claim that it is.
        dralley 3y ago
        I'm not claiming that either, so what's your point. I'm just saying that the way Rocky presents it is mostly marketing. The cleverness is to save themselves effort, not to do something they weren't being allowed to do previously.
        tux1968 3y ago
        I'm not sure why you weighed in on the subject then, other than to advance your own personal preference. At least, I mistook it as an objection to Rocky Linux's very existence. As long as what they're doing is legal, then let them be. Each distribution will rise and fall based on the value it provides.
  - tremon 3y ago
    The RHEL subscription license comes with a stipulation that the recipient does not distribute the RHEL sources further, under pain of license termination. I'd call that unjustly locked down by Red Hat.