Red Hat’s commitment to open source: A response to the git.centos.org changes

Linux@kbin.social – 9 points – 1 years ago

Red Hat’s commitment to open source: A response to the git.centos.org changes

More about Red Hat's decision to make CentOS Stream the primary repository for RHEL sources.

I’m disappointed by the general reaction of the Linux community about this. I can understand some hesitation and worry around hearing what Red Hat had said, but it didn’t warrant jumping to such an extreme, even going so far to attack somebody who believes in open source as much if not more than anybody else. We need Red Hat in this fight for software freedom because the truth is they contribute sooooo much more than any hobbyist can. Support people supporting Linux.

I'd say I'm disappointed, but I'm really not. I knew this was basically how this was going to play out. I've already been called a paid shill, and stupid a handful of times today elsewhere, for not wanting to burn RedHat to the ground for this decision.

People need to get outside and touch some grass.

Your final sentence comes across as dismissive. I suppose you didn't mean it that way, but please be aware of the tone.

It was meant to be dismissive. Happy to clear that up for you.

How sad. I hope you feel better tomorrow.

I feel perfectly fine. I have no idea what you're on about.

If they're placing restrictions on the rights they are unconditionally obligated to provide, they are not supporting Linux and they are not supporting open source.

Signing another contract that allows them to punish you for exercising your rights to modify or redistribute code as a prerequisite for receiving the code isn't some small understanding. It's an extremely malicious attack on the core fucking principle of the code they're stealing to sell as their own.

That's a very emotional take indeed, you obviously feel strongly.

What, exactly, is RedHat stealing here? Are they deleting code from upstream git repos?

I mean, if you have a moral issue with the way RedHat chooses to structure their customer agreements, you're more than welcome to not use their products. I generally feel like this is a mistake on RedHats part myself, but it doesn't affect my life in any meaningful way.

RedHat is going to continue to contribute back upstream, they're going to continue to support Fedora, and provide CentOS Stream for to community to use.

Rocky, Alma, Oracle and other projects that were rebuilding RHEL sources will have to sort out how they want to proceed.

There are a hell of a lot more evil things happening in the world to get pissed off about.

If you don't abide by the terms of the GPL, you do not have permission to modify and redistribute code licensed under it. That means that their entire OS is stolen, and they are selling software they have zero rights to.

Allowing companies to get away with it fundamentally destroys the principles of open source code. Sharing literally every modification they distribute with literally zero restrictions that aren't part of the GPL isn't some nice to have. It's unconditionally mandatory to have any rights to touch the code at all.

That's how you read the GPL, you might be right.

When I read the GPL, and I have read it a number of times over the years, while I might find what RedHat has chosen to do to be distasteful, I don't find it in violation of the GPL. It's entirely possible that I'm wrong.

But I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination, are you?

I liked the SFConservancy's take on this move. Red Hat has always skirted the line of GPL compliance with the way they offer their support, and while the latest move may still be legally compliant, it's another signal that shows their dedication to open-source isn't as strong as it once was.

I liked Jeff Geerlings take as well. It's pretty much the same though..

After reading and watching way too much content related to this, I think this has been blown way out of proportion.

I don't understand how anyone can honestly say that RHEL is going closed source when they know that's factually incorrect. I don't understand how anyone can say they're changing from Fedora to Ubuntu and not see the colossal irony on that. If anything, I can understand the position of RH even more. If I made a 1:1 clone distro of Fedora, nobody would give a shit about it. So, the ONLY incentive of using a 1:1 clone of RHEL is saving money.

And please, spare me the "Alma Linux is a gateway to RHEL", because any sane business will take any opportunity to save money.

Why not taking CentOS, direct upstream of RHEL, and use its code to create a RHEL competitor? Why not taking RHEL code, modify it and make a different distro instead of a bug-for-bug clone? (They've encouraged this in their blog post). The more I read, the more I feel it is because it takes work, simple as.