Red Hat Announces Free "RHEL For Open-Source Infrastructure"

[Paradigm Shifter]

*waits patiently for more goalpost moving*

*wonders when the license conditions will change and every "free" user will get screwed again*

[andyprough]

From today's announcement I would fine tune that to "if you are making FOSS that we can repackage and make money off of we will toss you a couple of licenses. Other wise shove off". And that is fair enough Redhat doesn't owe me any thing. Just as I don't have to promote and keep pushing their stuff. It's a freeish world.

Redhat doesn't owe you anything because they no longer exist as a distinct corporate entity. IBM does owe you source code though, and they are required to make their changes to your code available. Have to wonder if IBM will eventually fall out of love with copyleft licenses like google has been and like Apple has for a long time.

[onlyLinuxLuvUBack]

Redhat doesn't owe you anything because they no longer exist as a distinct corporate entity. IBM does owe you source code though, and they are required to make their changes to your code available. Have to wonder if IBM will eventually fall out of love with copyleft licenses like google has been and like Apple has for a long time.

In this situation, I feel like IBM management is a short bald guy in the princess bride battle of witts... https://youtu.be/3EkBuKQEkio?t=132

[torsionbar28]

original centos was a project by some people from other side of internet. you didn't pay for it, you had guaranteed exactly zero. people could just go home do something else on next day. and you can enjoy all of stability and knowledge with rhel now

CentOS doesn't "owe" anything. However, they had a proven track record of maintaining faithful ABI compatibility with RHEL. RHEL advertises a 10 year maintenance life. CentOS, therefore, provided the same. Ergo, users of CentOS had the reasonable expectation that the CentOS v8 product would be maintained for 10 years. This was a key selection criteria for those looking for a FOSS LTS distro. Disenfranchising a large volume of users by terminating CentOS 8 *eight years* earlier than expected has soured a lot of people to Red Hat. It's difficult to trust the company at this point.

i.e. you are just publicly self-flagellating imbecile

These are great, I look forward to your next, ahem, compliment.

[jaypatelani]

Just hop on to NetBSD


$ cvs checkout -r netbsd-9 -P src

$ cvs checkout -r netbsd-9 -P xsrc


#./build.sh -U -u -j4 -m amd64 -O ~/obj tools release iso-image

[Sonadow]

Does not affect me or my boss.

We previously used Ubuntu LTS or CentOS as our lab KVM host. With this, we'll just move over to CentOS Stream. And nothing of value is lost.

[bofkentucky]

Why are you guys not running OpenSUSE? In my view it have all what RHEL/CentOS have/had but additional a very appreciated newer stock kernel. I know RHEL do back-ports, but seems pretty limited, at least the features I've been investigating and looking for (kvm, qemu, storage).
I ditched OpenSUSE myself a few years ago because of their website and wiki (a rather superficial reason, I know), but I gave them a second chance now after the RHEL stunt and been so happy about it, that I now run it on all my production servers.
What's you reason not too....just curious? Is it just pure marketing?

Many of us didn't like the stink they acquired when they were tied up with Novell, probably not fair to judge them on that today, but they probably lost their chance when they failed to capitalize on the Redhat -> RHEL conversion 18 years ago.

[MrCal]

Many of us didn't like the stink they acquired when they were tied up with Novell, probably not fair to judge them on that today, but they probably lost their chance when they failed to capitalize on the Redhat -> RHEL conversion 18 years ago.

Interesting, in marketing point of view, if such a thing can hurt a company/organisation for so long in the IT world. Will people say the same about CentOS/RHEL in ten years when I ask the same question? :-/

[Delgarde]

IBM does owe you source code though, and they are required to make their changes to your code available.

A small correction. Assuming you're talking GPL, IBM are not required to make their changes to your code available to you... the only requirement is that they make their changes available to those who are receiving the binaries. The groups may overlap if the binaries are distributed widely, but the distinction is a critical one — there's no requirement to supply changes back to an upstream project, and indeed, having such a requirement would be antithetical to the right to fork GPL projects.

[kpedersen]

just as your garbage bin doesn't intend to drip feed you.
of course

Exactly.

Yours does? Yuck, thats pretty gross. Perhaps you should get a new one. It seems you are doing things... incorrectly.