3 ms·

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, ju

by 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.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

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.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]