@@verti3213Language grows and adapts. You either keep up or get left behind.
Год назад
Meanwhile, Rocky found a way to get the RHEL source from freely distributed RHEL cloud images without agreeing to a contract with Red Hat. So now it appears Red Hat has to shoot themselves in the foot again, by locking down the images 😅
@@AlucardNoir Because they would have to impose restrictions to using RHEL on cloud and the RHEL source based container image Idk about the RHEL cloud images, but imposing this on the container image would be very damaging
I'm working toward mitigating that by taking sources from CentOS Stream and using them to build a RHEL clone. Gregory Kurtzer gave me an invite to the Rocky mattermost, so I can collaborate with the team. Since then I've started to include the focus of seeing if Rocky could use my idea. My only focus before was the challenge from Mike McGrath. Well I made it into a challenge because he said nobody has attempted it before. 😄
I hope somebody convinced the Red Hat board of the saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity" because you gotta admit, this is more media attention than they've gotten in years 🙄
Why they don't go full proprietary is simple: Because they would have to rewrite every single package from scratch down to the kernel. They'd just be making their own OS.
The business model of RedHat might be questionable but I think they also contributed a LOT to the open source community and also the Linux kernel itself. So you can’t say they are just earning on other people’s work.
Sales reps for every software company *absolutely* intentionally confuse customers about their license terms in order to push more product. That's basically a given everywhere, and I don't see why Red Hat would possibly be an exception.
So, aside from filing a lawsuit and taking it to court, we as a community, and businesses can decide to vote with our wallet and not buy RHEL. They are not the be-all end-all of linux. SUSE is available, Debian is available, and countless other distros if you are looking for something a little less "stable". While i disagree with what RedHat did, they have clearly taken a business / profit approach, which they believe is their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders as a public company. I would love to see this challenged in court, and the GPL made more clear so things like this cannot happen in the future, whether its RHEL, or someone else in the FOSS space.
CORRECTION: they are not "licenses", Red Hat does not sell licenses. RHEL is licensed GPL, you can make as many copies or installs you want. All they sell are support subscription entitlements.
@@BrodieRobertson I understand what you're saying, unfortunately we have to use annoying "legal" talk with cases like these. Red hat is basically trying to enforce more limits than the GPL has by using the agreement that you accept when you create an account to have access to the rhel source code. Since they do give you the source code they are not violating the GPL but I can understand that people hate what they are doing because they are basically removing the previous easily accessed rhel source code.
But, as it is said in the SFC statement, RedHat often (purposely?) misrepresents them as "licenses" ("seat licenses"). And there is also noted an actual GPL violation from the past, when RedHat demanded from customers to delete "excess" copies of RHEL they used which were not covered by those "support subscription entitlements".
I think Red Hat is betting on the idea that the open source community doesn't want a big lawsuit around a FOSS license, because if a FOSS project loses the case the entire thing collapses to a gentleman's agreement and anyone who wants to flout it can just use that case as precedent.
That part isn't new, it's the entire business model. Lots of other open source vendors sell support agreements, RedHat is the only one I can think of that tries that stunt.
I don't get the problem.... they sell a support contact, and have stipulations. If you want to break the terms of the contract, then they end the contract.
@@AyaWettsThe problem is RH CANNOT dictate, restrict or deny any user where or how many machines RHEL can be installed on b/c Linux is GPL. All RH can do legally is enforce how many of those RHEL installed machines they will support. In other words if the user purchased a 10 seat SLA subscription but RHEL has been installed on 50 machines, RH is only legally obligated to support 10 of the 50 installed machines.
@@TheWallReportsI think unlike Ubuntu and opensuse where the the distribution is free but the support service is paid, the entire RHEL is paid distribution along with service and there is no free option for RHEL except for developers subscription.
@@KurtFrederiksen By contributing code in a GPL project that uses their copyright they give away the right to use whats in the GPL code, that's the entire point. You couldn't use their copyright anywhere else though becasue they never granted usage rights
Oracle has a net income of several billion USD a year. IBM wasn't even profitable last year. I get that the free and open source community might not like Oracle, but they do make money.
It's not just the FLOSS community tbh. Even loyal customers hate them. Obviously like their products but not the strings that come attached or the culture of baseless legal threats to try strongarm you into buying more licenses.
@@MechanicaMenace And yet nobody moves to any competitors? If they hated Oracle they would move away. Thing is, there are no good alternatives to everything Oracle sells. Just take ZFS for example. BtrFS has been in the works for over a decade now. It was close to good 10 years ago, it never become good enough to to use - at least not for anyone that needed ZFS to begin with. All SUSE needed to do is finish BtrFS and they would have not just taken market from Oracle but killed ZFS altogether with a foss alternative. But they never did. The reason nobody moves away from Oracle is because nobody else offers what they're offering. And in many cases like SUSE, even when they try, they give up just before the finish line. People feel that Oracle is the only one worth signing a contract with. That unfortunately speaks volumes not about Oracle but about their lackluster competition. And in the case of government contracts bribes probably help - probably, allegedly, not that I'm saying they engage in such tactics... nope, not me.
@@AlucardNoir oh like I said they obviously like the products. But I think a reason lots don't move away is the absolute headache they are when you try. The one place I know that did were a Solaris shop who moved to their own custom Linux distro a year after the Oracle acquisition and are still getting demands for payments, demands for code audits not only on their distro but on their own in house software, semi regular threats of lawsuits for using OpenZFS that will go away if they buy so many licenses and pay a fine etc, etc. They were fully expecting this behaviour. It's well known. You first use Oracle because they have some top tier DBs and EPMs, you stay with them because you're scared of what they'll do if you try leave.
I'll say it again: if RH is not forced to walk this back and start complying with the GPL, then it will cause the FOSS ecosystem to collapse. If RH can get away with violating the GPL, then anyone can. A new GPL version may also be required at this point. Anyway, don't stop giving us updates on this. It really is that important.
At the moment still, they are just skirting the law. No violation yet, actually SFC said CentOS and now Alma and Rocky Linux keep Redhat honest. Because what the business does is sort out of sight and the the distros make clear what they are shipping.
@@arthurmoore9488the GPL allows you to modify or redistribute the RHEL code you bought. But the GPL also allows RHEL to not sell a software or a future version of it.
I cannot stop of remembering the Hasbro/WotC fiasco with Open Game License (OGL) which is based on Open Software license, and thhink this was a coordinated corpo coup.
SUSE chimed in a few days ago on their blog saying that despite RHEL changes, they're commited to open source and intend to continue fostering a good relationship with the community via projects like openSUSE and things like that.
@@wartortlerulestheworld Canonical have never, ever tried to make Ubuntu's sources private, so I'm not sure why you think they'd need to make a statement.
The source code of Linux OS, which RHEL builds on, still uses GPLv2. Interestingly, GPLv3 was crated to patch up the loop hole of GPLv2 - tivoization, "the practice of designing hardware that incorporates software under the terms of a copyleft software license like the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL), but uses hardware restrictions or digital rights management (DRM) to prevent users from running modified versions of the software on that hardware. - Wikipedia" It would be interesting to see if Red hat found another loophole in GPLv2 that allows them to limit availability of the source code.
@@fedeac31as much as it’s needed I worry about further license fragmentation. I’d imagine a good bit of software would stay as v2 or v3 without an “or later” clause
Corporate greed is a terrible thing... Think about the other products under the Red Hat label. I would be very hesitant doing any new business with Red Hat. In fact, I am actively busy of taking any remaining workloads based on Red Hat to other solutions.
Rocky just has to make friends with lots of Red Hat customers and copy their copy. Also, they can’t require you to tell red hat what you do with the code they give you. Seat licenses don’t make sense with the GPL. I can make any copy I want. That is the point. I have concerns when someone pushes for the “spirit” of a license. Either you follow the license or not. If you want people to behave a certain way with your software, put it in the license.
How would Red Hat know that it was you specifically that leaked the source code? The worst they can do if they found out is to terminate your contract with them, now and for the future. But whether they catch you or not, the source code is legally distributed. All you have to do is be their customer, get the sources which are given to you under a free software license, and leak them anonymously under the free software license.
Possibly before leaking run a linting software to reformat the code to avoid that RedHat includes spaces, comments or non printable characters to recognize you😂
@@alessiozamboni4694 be very careful. It can be argued that the revision history is part of the software. You can not lint the git history, but you can surely mark it. Not providing the history could lead to false attribution. False attribution is a double problem: Faults getting attributed to Red Hat, when in fact, they made a upstream down port of patch to an older kernel version, but also stealing attribution from a third party contractor to Redhat that holds his own copyright.
I was actually thinking this too! That or, just like "taxes" (if literally EVERYONE stopped paying them, what would "they" do - NOTHING), same thing here, what would they do if ALL their customers (or a HUGE portion of them) "LEAKED" the source. Are they going to deny future business with all of them? Okay, close your doors see if "we" care! LOL
There are still the spec files (the recipes for making the rpm files), Redhat could license those under a non-free license. Applied patches would be free, but free copies would need to make their own ones
I think one way to raise the stakes for red hat can be that core FOSS projects modify their license to make it illegal to include them in red hat under the current business model. But red hat contributes a lot to FOSS projects so this might be risky.
A big enough software project can not get the agreement to change licenses. In theory, every single contributor can simply say "no" and the GPL2 license sticks. The solution is "GPL2 or anylater". Note that dual licenses do not solve that: Redhat can use the whole project under GPL2.
@@terminallyonline5296 they could do that for the software that they own (even if it's currently licensed under GPL), since they develop a lot of software. Then you will end up with a crippled system.
@@notuxnobux They can not do so even if they 'own' the software. The GPL keeps you from this. Also good luck running RHEL without the L. Linux, the kernel, is GPLv2.
The problem I have with it, other than not "being in the spirit of the GPL," is the restriction of distributing the code acquired as a RHEL customer. That sounds like an extra restriction, telling people they can't redistribute GPL'd code. Why isn't the SFC making their stand on that hill?
In my opinion, the whole thing with services and support is ok by me. What is not ok is limiting the source code and its distribution. I do not know if the can bar someone from having free of charge complete access to the source code, however is clear to me that GPL license means you can do whatever you want once you get hands on the source code. And while I fine with them limiting the support to a company, there is nothing on GPL preventing that company from distributing the code to third parties or every computer they have.
The GPL precludes further restrictions being added to the license. By adding the restrictions to the Red Hat subscription Terms of Service (ToS) instead of to the license, Red Hat hopes to be able to say that it is not adding further restrictions to the license and that the customers are still able to exercise all of their rights under the GPL license. This is because the subscription ToS provision only ends their subscription (if they exercise their GPL rights), not their GPL rights themselves. While it is not impossible to imagine a court agreeing with this logic, the subscription ToS provision clearly is an ancillary restriction aimed directly at discouraging users from exercising their rights under the GPL, so I don't think most courts would let it fly. However a scholar in contract law could address that issue better than I can. The fear is that if this were to pass legal muster, it would spark a land rush of corporations grabbing up GPL software and distributing it under subscriptions with all manner of ToS written by clever lawyers that would effectively gut the GPL. I wonder what RMS and the FSF think about this?
The GPL3 came into existence because of corporations endrunning the GPL one way. If it becomes common for corporations to endrun it another, we may see a GPL4.
the thing is, that no one is entitled to other people's work. Once they give you the source code, they can't stop you doing whatever you want with it, but it would be unwise to make the user then unconditionally entitled to every further update to the software. The promise to get new versions is not in the license, it is a separate agreement with separate terms.
@@NiceMicroTV "The promise to get new versions is not in the license, it is a separate agreement with separate terms." It is an added restriction clearly targeting users' rights under the GPL. For example, they could also have added a stipulation in the ToS that if you even requested the source code they would end your subscription, but it would clearly be an added restriction targeting the user's rights under the GPL. The GPL clearly forbids such added punitive restrictions. If Red Hat wants to use GPL'd code (no one is forcing them to), then they must abide by the GPL license.
@@NiceMicroTV "the thing is, that no one is entitled to other people's work. " So you are saying that Red Hat is not entitled to the mountains of FOSS software that makes up their distributions - all of the software THAT THEY DID NOT WRITE from Linux, to httpd, to X-Windows, and all of the multitude of other software written by others and licensed under the GPL or other open source licenses - you're saying that Red Hat isn't entitled to that?
I wish that Linus Torvalds would do something about Device Tree source code not being made available to people porting Android devices. Android has a Linux kernel which is GPL but without the Device Tree source code it's pretty much worthless.
Is this much of a problem? If i remember correctly, you can get the FDT from /sys/firmware, and you can decompile it without much effort. The only things you lose are comments and formatting. (unless you mean stuff like bootloader usage of FDT, which aren't really Torvalds' responsibility)
@@helgakrobo a decompiled device tree is not the same as the original source code. It's basically a textual representation of the binary. To convert a decompiled one into source code and then port that to a different kernel version is near impossible. I believe that one of the original ideas was that the dtb is supposed to be OS independent, so any kernel could use it, but in practice the device tree changes with drivers, which constantly change with Linux so it hasn't delivered that particular promise.
We read the writing on the wall when they pulled support for CentOS 8. The decision was made at that time to move all future deployments to their competition. The funny thing is we weren't looking for the free ride. We will be buying datacenter licensing this year.
It is worth pointing out that without the RHEL business model... and others like it... Linux would not exist as we know it today. People like to hate on the idea of corporations in their precious free software ecosystem (Not saying you do it, people in general) but we do need them. Doesn't mean Red Hat, Valve, Canonical, Google, etc can defy the GPL, but we do need them.
@@BrodieRobertson I am kind of forced to use Pulse Audio against my wishes now. For years I was able to fix my audio by uninstalling it, At least I now have extra CPU cores to run that crap.
The problem is that the part you're citing of the GPL is in v3. This part about no extra restrictions is not found in v2, under which Linux and most of the GNU software are licensed.
Is it allowed to give each user a different versions of the source code? (But as it can be changed, it need to be more to be clear, how it was) (and it would be expensive for IBM)
@@schwingedeshaehers They could give every licensee a different version of the source code with minor differences so they could find it... but per licenses that would have to be the actual source code used for the software they are distributing... so that means a custom build for every client. Then if they ever did find some client breaking the terms of the agreement, all they can do is cancel their contract with them. They may try to sue for damages or something though... that may or may not hold up in court, but most large RedHat customers wouldn't take that risk for the negligible RedHat cost
Basically, IBM's argument here (and in other places over the decades when it comes to their Global Services support model), if the license doesn't say they can't retaliate against you for exercising your rights under that license, then they are allowed to retaliate. IBM hasn't changed in 100 years. That said, I don't think they're going to go the Oracle route, but it's a good thing to point out - they're still more "Free" than Oracle's offering.
"spirit of the GPL" is an extremely problematic notion. The whole point of the GPL is that *it* is what you agree to, not some "spirit" that isn't actually written down anywhere. If you want something to be against the license then clearly write that in. The GPL is written the way that it is for a reason and I feel like some people completely ignore that when talking about the "spirit"
Yeah, to be properly categorized as "spirit" are those that conform the *publicized* motivation and *publicized* intent of the licenses/rules/laws. Everything else has no right no to be likened as the "spirit".
"The spirit of the law" is a thing in law and has weight when it comes to evaluation by a judge in a court case. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_Law) Similarly there is a "meeting of minds" in contact law that refers to a common understanding of what the contract is about. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds). In edge cases it can be important to gauge what the "spirit of the license" is to figure out eher or not a party has crossed the line.
@@tomatopotato4229 your first link should probably go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law rather than an article about a book I think calling the concept of meeting of the minds "similar" is a bit of a stretch. An especially significant quote from that page: "the awareness of a legal obligation is established, not through each party's subjective understanding of the terms, but on "objective indicators," based on what each party said and did" But anyway, yes, if this gets taken to court essentially it will be up to a judge to decide on what the terms actually mean in practice and in some sense that could be considered "the spirit of the license". Nevertheless that doesn't change my opinion that: the GPL is written the way that it is for a reason and I feel like some people completely ignore that when talking about the "spirit".
"Spirit of the GPL" is only problematic because someone has clearly gone out of their way to be "compliant," while flouting and flagrantly violating the core purpose of the license. This is problematic not from a perspective of the license itself (it can't possibly predict every loophole that will exist), but from bad faith actors clearly intending to abuse what you've offered in good faith.
So one thing bigger companies sometimes insist on is escrowing code to software that is mission critical for them. Clearly servers running RHEL would in many cases be mission critical. Which leads to the question: is any company requiring RedHat to escrow RHEL code, and what gets them around the RedHat policy of “get sources and you are no longer a customer”?
Getting sources is fine AFAIK, presumably some companies even contribute occasional fixes; it's distributing or going over the support entitlement they object to
yeah SFC does not like it but what will they actually do? does the GPL even get enforced? do they have the money/lawyers to actually enforce it if not they are basically just wagging their fingers at redhat
The GPL solution to Red Hat's business model would be to fork the distribution. The problem is Rocky users want a fork that is identical to RHEL. I think Rocky is free to continue doing this, but Red Hat have no obligation to help them. The question is how onerous Red Hat is willing to make compliance with their T&Cs for their paying customers and when that starts causing problems for Red Hat.
LOL. That fortune 500 company sounds like it may have been my company. :D We had to switch from SUSE to RHEL and the management were exceedingly cagey about why.
How much of RHEL is GPL? I'm sure there a quite a few packages that are licensed under a BSD, Apache, etc. style license. Could they, theoretically, not release or upstream the source those packages?
GPL cannot change a different software packages license. Code only becomes GPL if the GPL source code is used directly, not accessing a binary that is GPL.
@@AyaWetts Agreed, that is why I didn't mention the LGPL. Maybe I should have said how much of RHEL isn't on a Copy Left License, where Red Hat is under no legal obligation to release anything?
@@Jaabaa_Prime I wouldn't be surprised if they go that route later if people keep copy/pasting their stuff and trying to put them out of business... find a lot of software in there with other licenses that they could maybe mess things up with. Pretty much all the base things to make any GNU/Linux distro is GPL though as far as I know, but too many thousands of packages needed to make RHEL, there could be some core ones that they could focus on maybe.
It's not like Redhat is the ultimate linux distribution on the market. Alternatives are available and people (including business) are free to decide where or not they want to pay for RHEL or simply make use of Debian based distro that are truly free. I've already made that decision year ago.
So, RedHat is basically saying to its customers: "Hey, look, here are my binaries and my source code, but if you redistribute it for free, you will no longer by my customer". Am I right?
Of course, tell big datacenters to simply absorb the costs of deployment and maintenance instead of paying for a cheaper license that includes such services.
if we all + companies that needed RH, can collect a fund raising to pay off IBM to sell us the license to RH back to the community and it's all trademarks, will that help to get rid of IBM and other corporate leechers ?
is this another common situation whereby mega corp a (ibm) inevitably ends up hiring from a common pool of employees, coming from other similar corporations (for example oracle). who then sit at their new desk and myopically cannot distinguish or change gears from the previous mindset... because it has become so deeply engrained into their core essence(esss) ????
Linux kernel is released under GPL 2.0 only,. There''s no way to legally not license the whole work for free as GPL 2.0 to literally anyone that just wants it for free. This whole murky business argumen doesn't work if you remember that Linux Kernel is GPL 2 ONLY. You can license your package or program with a lot of different GPL-compatible licenses, but as a whole, any project that uses linux kernel can't legally do anything but to comply with the GPL 2.0 license, that literally says that anyone who wants it is allowed to get a free license and the source code. Singular program or package can be licensed with some other lisence, but only when not part of a larger project. Single line of GPL 2 code means that you have to release the source code (give free license to anyone who wants it). Any legal or other reasons make it automatically illegal to use GPL2 -code. If you can't comply, you can't use the code... GPL3 related arguments are just stupid, because the fXXXing kernel is GPL2, and doesn't allow to release pretty much anything if there's a law that prevents you from upholding the GPL2 for past, future and just anyone who ever would want the code. No linux distro can ever be legally released as nothing else than GPL2, even if parts of it, when separated from the whole, are released with some other license. GPL3 tries to be more restrictive than GPL2, but it in some ways just stupidly complicated that it makes it easy to make these stupid arguments that have nothing to do with the fact that the kervel is GPL2, and any work based on this has to freely give their source code to anyone. This probably makes android illegal too by the way.
@@damiendye6623 Yes. But there's no problem if stand alone projects inside the distro are released under some other license, as long as the project as a whole (when not separated to smaller components) is released under GPL2.0.
@@joonassandelin5464 that's not true. The original source and derivative work does. However all the core components that make up a Linux distribution are Gpl then the core os would need to switch to bsd to get round it.
@@damiendye6623 No. GPL2 explicitly states this: " You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." Section 2 b. There's no ambiquity here (except that you can technically add something to your license, if it doesn't ever contradict GPL2, if you say GPL 2.0 or later, you grant the right to use GPL3 instead, but if your project includes a linux kernel (uses GPL 2.0 with syscall exception, which is fine, because kernel is upstream to any distro that is currently available, and adding stuff to the license that's more restrictive is just fine, as long as you don't break your original license) Full linux distros are always downstream from the kernel, so there's no getting around the fact that any OS that uses Linux kernel is always GPL 2.0 + syscall exception and compatible additions. If you release a distro with BSD-code in a project that uses GPL-code, it's ok, but you can never legally release GPL-code licensed under BSD-license, because any project that uses linux kernel, always falls under GPL 2.0. There's no way around... if you can''t comply with the license, you can't use GPL.. GPL is pretty restrictive in this sense...
@@joonassandelin5464 GPL2 only requires you to make source code available to the same people you distribute the software to... not to anyone and everyone in existence. All the software in a Linux OS can fall under many licenses (and does), not just GPL. Using the Linux kernel does not make your software have to fall under the GPL... using Linux Kernel source code in your software is a different story, but your complete separate project that runs on a Linux Kernel does not have to be open source at all.
But Red Hat provided services no? Disregarding the software license, the software can be kept or whatever but for sure they can charge for or revoke their (service) licenses? I still have trouble understanding what all the fuzz is about. We kinda want FOSS to be developed in such a way, it's why we have distros like Fedora that are free and can actually compete with MacOs and Win.
On a side note, I don't like GPL. However I do like LGPL. If I want my software to be actually used, I effectively have to put it under LGPL - and even then companies may not want it, just because of the correlation with GPL. GPL is just "rude". RMS himself said that it is aggresive license changing the world. It worked in the past, but the more you push, the bigger the resistance is. I think we've reached the point where GPL just doesn't work in practice. In my company we had to change licensing from GPL to MIT (well, I wanted LGPL, I think it would work, but management didn't agree) because of that. Otherwise we would simply lose clients and eventually go bankrupt.
Companies being companies. Hell, it's "techinally correct", so why not just cut off everyone else? Eh, Rocky will survive. Unless they want to go full proprietary and switch to a BSD kernel or something, the source code will always get "leaked".
lol, i fully expect a situation like this to get worse before it gets better, big businesses are run by curmudgeonly corporate sociopaths who have no idea how to interact like civil human beings, and are more likely to double down on whatever bad behavior they were doing, than they are to perform even a modicum of self analysis.
basically they are comitting suicide by trying to up their profit margins and not lose money as recession is hitting. similar to other policies other companis are taking to up profit moargins and squeeze customers as recession in hitting them.
imagine: IBM one of the very cornerstones of the computer age would have done this: buy Red Hat, develop the OSS and just make money on a very good support for their buisness partners... They would have had such a big backup in the community to be just the good guy! Hey shareholders of IBM: what do you think is a good reputation worth?
Wait, the license doesn't require the source-code to be made public for people that do not already have access to the respective binary, even after the binary is made available to third-parties?
the source code only has to be given to the people who receive the software from you. You don't have to make it public or even convenient. AFAIK, you can make it so that to receive the source, they have to send you a fax, and you can post them the source code printed on toilet paper.
@@NiceMicroTV Perhaps I'm confusing with another license; I thought you had to share any changes you make and distribute (internal changes you kept for yourself would be excluded) for anyone that asks
@@NiceMicroTVGPL explicitly specifies "on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange". Printed toilet paper would not qualify.
I think their business model is fine. Those particular contractual terms don't apply to the majority of customers since other customers that contribute to the same projects aren't often direct competitors, and if they were serious competitors they wouldn't likely be customers or have any need for Redhat's services anyway.
@@BobCollins42 You would have to query those that crafted the contract for their rationale. It is usually more complicated and less sinister than it appears on the surface.
@@Ormaaj I, along with the whole Linux community, have followed the Redhat journey for decades. Redhat has consistently endeavored to bend, or break, the license (the GPL) which governs the software they are distributing. I realize this issue may be new to you, but it is not for the rest of us. Please do some research.
@@Skyman12808 it's based on Ubuntu at its core but it does roll certain elements to keep them more up to date. If you want everything to be as up to date as possible PopOS isn't the place to be but if that not your focus try it out
So are there anyone leaving the entire Red Hat ecosystem because of it? Not just RHEL, but also Fedora and Silver Blue?
Год назад
My guess is probably not. I might move my Workstation away from Fedora to Debian for convenience (I like being able to run the packages I make on my own hardware as well), but I haven't heard of anyone doing it as a boycott thing.
Many years ago, yes. I saw the writing on the wall in the late 00's. There really is no good reason to use RH derivatives now. They used to have nice gui frontends for things like LVM that helped newbies not screw things up, but they've deprecated them and the new management tools are really not appropriate for single-machine use. It's just not a good fit for enthusiasts, hobbyists or small business. I threw one of the rebuilds onto a VPS recently and hated it.
this is a complex matter, but one needs to take into account that RH contributed TONS of code to the community, so statements that "RH just exploits other open-source projects for their own profit" are basically incorrect, because significant amount of these projects contains a lot of code contributed by RH. I think that RH is genuinely trying to find a good balance between contributing to the community and staying profitable (so that they are able to CONTINUE contributing to the community). whether their current approach is optimal, is debatable nevertheless.
Not really. The RHCE is a good cert to have and given that AWS is built on CentOS and more recently Fedora, being RHEL certified can be of great benefit in the enterprise job market.
Well, if McGrath can't get his Elon Musk Disease under control, this is certainly not the final chapter. (EMD is a condition where shit spews uncontrollably out the wrong end of your alimentary canal.)
Not easily. They could maybe play a cat and mouse game with watermarking sources. They could also potentially get an admission on record in a deposition if it was relevant to some other legal matter, but not really scale-able.
@@bootmii98 I should think so provided the changes are non-functional. GPL significantly predates the notion of "reproduceable builds" (separate builds of the source should produce byte-for-byte identical binaries even on different systems) so I can't see demanding that, and absent that there's a lot of room to maneuver.
@@bootmii98 Would watermarking source code violate the GPL? or would they use a different watermarked source for every customer's individual binary packages? (Because that seems impractical)
@@FireStormOOO_ Watermarking in this context would be incorporating some unique change for each customer. Wouldn't it be trivial to diff the source trees provided to different customers to find the watermarks?
