Red Hat Now Limiting RHEL Sources To CentOS Stream

[jacob]

what about GPL? https://access.redhat.com/articles/5112

Isn't GPL about publishing the sources and modifications of the software used?

That's probably the biggest misconception about the GPL. You must make the sources and modifications available to those you provide (or sell) the software to. You don't have to make them universally available to anyone who asks.

[unis_torvalds]

That’s why we need a Linux foundation distro…

One f@ing platform that makes everyone agree.
Same qualities, same quirks, same bugs, same fixes. It’s time to erase this multi erratic gnu/linux distributions stupidity.

standards.png

...Also, the Linux Foundation doesn't really do software development, as others here have pointed out.

[uxmkt]

i just have to ask.... isn't freeload not a concept of opensource and free software in general ?

NO.

[Icculus93]

Behaving like they are special and important when they aren't.
believing in the brand over quality and what their users want
moving to close out open ecosystems to increase brand loyalty

All while their server sales collapse by 90% over a ten year period.

what other mistakes did Sun make that IBM hasnt yet?

Ohhh, Kylo... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sRS1dwCotw

[qarium]

The problem I have with AGPL is that I can't understand it. I have also never met anyone who understands it. It's had to know what will come from it when it gets it's first major appearance in court.
With so many unknowns you won't get good collaboration. Linux can benefit from major corporations, Redhat has been doing a good job in that regard. Thanks to them open source has seen many benefits.
Perhaps we might see something between GPL and AGPL but I doubt it. The network request part of AGPL is just ridiculous with regards to this subject.

what exactly don't you unterstand ? AGPL only exist because of google.

google did steal all the open-source code and free-software code and did put it as Software as a service behind a webinterface and this alone did give them the right to never give back any of the sourcecode changes they make internally.

without google and this SAAS move of Pirating all the open-source projects without ever give back anything AGPLwould not exist.

AGPL only means that if you are EVIL Google with EVIL SAAS business modell then you are forced to give back your internal version of the application source code.

[qarium]

Apparently RH (more like IBM) is doing everything in their power to alienate those who haven't already left after the CentOS debacle. If they think they don't need the community in the slightest, they're in for some great surprise.

yes... its the same with power 9 and power10 they claim that power 10 is more successfull without opensource.

just to quote bridgman form another forum topic:

It seems to be more successful than POWER9 in all respects so far. Or did you just mean open source friendliness ? If so that's fine and I agree Power10 is behind POWER9 there but the term "successful" generally refers to business success and in that regard Power10 seems to have worked out well for IBM.

[qarium]

It's funny to me so many comments about "freeloading" off of Red Hat's work. Must be lots of folks here who don't use RHEL professionally. We have racks and racks of RHEL servers, and we pay Red Hat for the annual subscriptions. The main reason my employer will not and can not use Rocky/Alma/etc is due to a required industry security control that states all software must be "vendor supported". We're paying the big bucks for the support contract because we're required to, as part of complying with industry regulations. Not for the binaries, not for the code. For the 24/7 enterprise support that pretty much every large organization requires, either legally, or by policy. Red Hat isn't losing a dime by complying with the GPL i.e. providing sources for Rocky/Alma to repackage.

thats right... so all the freeloader talk is bullshit. and its the same on windows i know people they use a fully legal 4€ windows 10PRO license from ebay... but they spend much much more on 24/7 support...

this means the software is not the factor what is expensive it is always the service and support what makes it expensive.

[kgonzales]

For business/corporate users of open source, there are three types:

• those who directly contribute to the open source community
• those who pay someone else to contribute to the open source community
• dirty dirty freeloaders

For the most part, the last group of users always gets screwed at some point (major software issue, very bad bug, lack of hardware support, etc) and moves to the second group and partially the first group. The most successful ones do a blend of the two from the start.

This is lived fact after almost two decades of working in the industry. Unless you also have worked with dozens of global corporations around open source adoption and commercial deployment, your opinion on this matter is worth less than the paper it’s not printed on.

Get your hands dirty, pay up or shut up.

[mSparks]

Ohhh, Kylo... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sRS1dwCotw

great documentary on what happens next

https://youtu.be/P1TsVW4P5DI

https://www.statista.com/statistics/383635/ibm-hpc-server-revenue-worldwide/

But I take it you'll be matching my short positions?

[poncho524]

(deleted)