87
AlmaLinux No Longer Aims For 1:1 Compatibility With RHEL
(www.phoronix.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
87 points (95.8% liked)
Linux
48376 readers
1559 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I always thought the Red Hat business model was based around service and support with the OS being a secondary product which is why the free forks existed. When did the OS become the product?
When other companies made a business out of building a clone distro from the source RPMs with trademarks removed.and selling support contracts for it. Oracle being the absolute worst about it. Fuck Oracle.
The ability to do that is literally one of the core purposes of the license.
You don't and can't own derivative works of GPL projects. Oracle has the exact same right to resell an exact copy as red hat does of the original project.
I agree. That's why I said I don't support RedHat's choice to close off access to their source to non-customers. RedHat is still complying with their end of the license though, by keeping source access open to the recipients of their binary distribution. This is how Rocky is aiming to maintain 1:1 binary. RedHat is still publishing their Universal Base Image Docker image, so they need to keep source for that open, and Rocky will be using that method to get sources.
My stance is that we as users should be moving on from RedHat and RedHat derivatives, or just pay for RedHat if that's what we want. Continuing to use derivatives will just convince RedHat we'll all pay up if they can just get rid of those other options.
Having a prerequisite contract that allows them to punish customers who exercise their rights to the software is not complying with the license. Selling the code is allowed (though if it were written in the modern era where distribution costs are negligible I'm not sure it would be. Predicating distribution on other contracts that limit your rights is not.
You don't have a right to their sources until they distribute to you. And they have the right to choose to whom they do business (as long as they're not violatong discrimination laws). If they've distributed their product to you they have to give you the source, and they will. And if you distribute that source, they won't distribute the next release to you, so you won't have license to those subsequent sources. Compliant with the letter, not the spirit. It's shitty. And I think we should accordingly not do business with RedHat. That's what Alma is chosing here, by pivoting to no longer being 1:1 source rebuild distribution. Rocky is trying to hold onto the model that RedHat is trying to kill, by finding ways to still be a non-paying recipient of an RH distribution, requiring they be given access to source. I think we can expect RedHat to try and find a way to cut that off. Then Rocky will either pivot or die. But I wouldn't want to wait and see and then be screwed. I would want to break all dependence on an entity intent on breaking me. And I'd be wary of recommending Rocky as a migration from CentOS because of RedHat's actions.
It's not compliant with the letter. The GPL doesn't allow you to place other limitations on someone to receive the source. "You have the rights the GPL grants you, but we can punish you for exercising it" is a blatant and egregious breach of the GPL.
They're not betting that there's a 1 in a billion chance that they're right. They know with absolute certainty that they aren't even in the neighborhood of complying with the license. They're betting that no one is willing to spend the massive amount of money it would take to punish them for their stolen code.
Just to reiterate, I don't think RH is in the right here.
They're "punishing" you by not taking any more of your money for future versions. Maybe we'll see a court case out of it to settle the question but I doubt it. But consider you are a customer, and you have to ship RH binaries with your application. In order to comply with the license you must also make the source available. RedHat can't stop you from doing so, they just won't give you access to any more updates (and stop taking your money). So now you can't ship security updates to your customer. So now you have a legal liability by being a RedHat customer. Either you fail to comply with GPL yourself for the sake of updates, or you expose your customer to known security risks because you compiled with the GPL. So .. why do business with RedHat anymore? Explain this problem to your customers why you can't certify on RedHat anymore.
"If you distribute the code you're entitled to distribute we can terminate your contract" is identical to "if you distribute the code you're entitled to distribute we can charge you money". They're additional restrictions that are unconditionally not under any circumstances allowed by the GPL. You cannot restrict redistribution in any way for any reason outside of the GPL terms.
The second you do so, you are no longer covered under the GPL and everything you're distributing is copyright infringement.
I'm not a lawyer, but I categorically disagree that those two statements are the same. If someone takes RedHat to court and wins, fantastic. But as I've said, I wouldn't make business plans that rely on winning that case.
This has a name.... someone help... tip of my tongue... aaaaah... FREE SOFTWARE?
Did Red Hat invent linux? Did Red Hat write bash?
No, but Red Hat created the following major projects:
They're also major contributors of the following projects:
If you use Linux, you directly use or benefit from Red Hat contributions. As simple as that.
This is an ethical problem. You can rebrand RHEL as Oracle Linux, copy Red Hat's business model, and dump the work on Red Hat, but should you do that? Nobody at Oracle stopped to think about that question. According to the software license, sure. But is it ethical to exploit the good will of foss to these extremes? I would personally say no, especially considering Red Hat reinvests money into foss. Money now in the pockets of Oracle.
Imagine you develop a foss and license the software under MIT like everybody else does. Now a company roams around and makes your foss a core part of their business after a massive success. Perhaps they're the next FAANG company, who knows. You generated billions of dollars in revenue for that company, and never saw any of that. You regret your careless licensing decision, yeah. But at the end of the day, you will feel exploited.
What even is the point you think you're arguing against with me? Someone asked when RedHat decided to change aspects of their business model and I provided an answer. I didn't say I agree with it. Even in the face of me saying literally "I don't support RedHat" and "I haven't used RH in like 20 years" you seem really dedicated to convincing yourself that I just love RedHat and think they can do no wrong. Geerling is right. RedHat is stupid, and IBM is killing whatever was left of the brand. There are many, many alternatives to RedHat. Both free and commercial. Lets use them instead of clinging to RedHat-but-not-RedHat-because-we-don't-want-to-pay-RedHat.