Rocky Linux Shares How They May Continue To Obtain The RHEL Source Code

[RussianNeuroMancer]

Why not use Oracle to get same sources instead of RHEL? Compiled binary will be the same anyway.

[Britoid]

I understand your reasoning, but it has largely been irrelevant since containers took over. Every self respecting server program is being distributed as a Docker container nowadays, (and there are various attempts to use containers in Desktop, with varying success).
Even Red Hat is pushing for containers with various projects like Podman and friends, OpenShift, Quay etc.. which renders the host distro evermore irrelevant.

People use RHEL Containers.

They're actually really useful.

[Vermilion]

1. You still need a host system. So also container management needs to be integration-tested.

The host is largely abstracted, we don't need 1:1 RHEL rebuilds on the host to run some RHEL-only software. CentOS was probably useful for this usecase 10 years ago, but today you can run a rolling release distro in production if you got the time.

3. What do you run in the container? "Bug for bug" compatible integration-tested software. So probably you would use RHEL within the container. Ideally you run a minimized version of everything, but would take more effort.

I don't like the term "bug for bug" either, but the idea is reasonable to some extent. They probably should have used something like "behaviourally identical".

People use RHEL Containers.

They're actually really useful.

That's exactly what I was getting at. UBI is freely available with all their bugs and features. Anyone can use them to test and deploy RHEL-based software if they need to, the argument that we need the clones to run some RHEL-only software for free doesn't hold up today.

[Nuc!eoN]

Instead of the "bug for bug" nonsense they could put in engineering resources to fix those bugs, and make their own enterprise distro with their own identity instead of leeching off RHEL's reputation?

Why instead of faffing and complaining about it, don't you invest your precious time and energy yourself? ^_^

[carewolf]

There is no obligation to provide source code for GPL licensed software at the request of people you have not distributed the software to.
There is no "spirit" of open source being violated here, this is working as intended. GPL was never meant to be some sort of tool to shake down developers.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

There IS an obligation not to impose any additional restrictions on the code. So it must be redistibuted as GPL with full right to share it on though. So they can restrict who they provide the code for, but any attempts at restricting what those they provide it to does with code is against the license. This is also why nobody does the first thing, because even though it is allowed, but also pointless. You can not restrict the redistribution of GPL code.

In other words: The GPL is obviously violated!

[piotrj3]

where the free developer license?

* oh yeah zero.

what is going to happen after sles15-sp5 ?

opensuse leap 15.6 will match binary with what os version ???

Since 15.3 opensuse leap matches binary compability with same SUSE enterprise linux. So leap 15.6 will be binary compability SUSE enterprise 15.6.

https://www.suse.com/suse-defines/definition/opensuse-leap/

So your free developer license is literally opensuse leap, and opensuse leap has well defined and supported methods to migrate to SUSE enterpise linux if you wished to do so.

There is no diffrence in release cycle or normal support dates. https://en.opensuse.org/Lifetime

Leap 15's lifecycle fully aligns with SUSE Linux Enterprise.

Technically speaking opensuse is neither upstream or downstream of SUSE. It is literally the same stream with few stuff related to licensing excluded in opensuse.

[Vermilion]

Why instead of faffing and complaining about it, don't you invest your precious time and energy yourself? ^_^

Hey you asked how they could move on and I gave you a reasonable answer. I'm sure how I spend my precious time and energy is irrelevant to the discussion.

[kpedersen]

From their official statement here:

https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-source-response-gitcentosorg-changes

Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source, and one that has the potential to revert open source back into a hobbyist- and hackers-only activity.

Make no mistake, Red Hat thinks that without them, Linux and all of the thousands of developers that work on it are just a bunch of hobbyist hippies. I think that is a little bit of an obnoxious and naive viewpoint.

It shows that Red Hat's *only* goal now is to exploit this work. Remember that 99.999% of the work that Red Hat is no longer wanting to share with i.e Rocky is done by us, not RH. They are holding our own work ransom against us! How bizarre is that situation?!

Personally I think it is time we leave people with this kind of mindset behind. They have been holding back the industry for decades. Red Hat and IBM are *legacy* companies.

And using the same quote again:

Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source, and one that has the potential to revert open source back into a hobbyist- and hackers-only activity.

Red Hat distributes two of my bits of software with no changes whatsoever... No value added. Why is it OK for them but not for Rocky to use my software in the same way that they do?

[chithanh]

It was over the second IBM bought Red Hat. Everyone saw this coming a mile away.

I have seen people assuming that IBM is to blame, but nothing of substance behind those claims.
In fact it is a continuation of over a decade of Red Hat policy to paywall their open source offerings and stop redistribution through threats. The first major incident (broken out RHEL kernel patches) happened many years before IBM bought them. IBM had never attempted paywalling and making threats as far as I remember.

SFC has a good summary: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/...-gpl-analysis/

There is no obligation to provide source code for GPL licensed software at the request of people you have not distributed the software to.
There is no "spirit" of open source being violated here, this is working as intended. GPL was never meant to be some sort of tool to shake down developers.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

"to the program's users", not to the general public.

It is still a violation of GPL's spirit because Red Hat punishes their customers who actually exercise their software freedom and redistribute the open source code, which is their right under the GPL. So they are forced to choose between future business with Red Hat and software freedom 2 and 3.

[Nuc!eoN]

Hey you asked how they could move on and I gave you a reasonable answer. I'm sure how I spend my precious time and energy is irrelevant to the discussion.

I don't see why they should prefer "your way" of moving on instead of their way of moving on? It is not like they are getting paid for it.