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

[kpedersen]

I suppose that Alma Linux and Rocky Linux together, have usurped about 1-2 million dollars per year of business that, in reality belongs to RedHat.

I would say, that the two are stealing from RedHat, since it is their sole source of source code.

So you are saying that Red Hat are stealing from hundreds of thousands of open-source developers since it is their sole source of source code in their Enterprise Linux product?

I think having a quick read of what the GPL is and why open-source programmers "develop code for free?????!!!" would be beneficial to you.

[sophisticles]

Filing lawsuits is a pretty unpredictable escalation of this game of chicken. There's no question that, before putting RHEL source behind its paywall, Rocky and Alma were 100% within their rights under the GPL to base their distros on RHEL. The primary question now is whether RH's new contractual limitations on RHEL source access violate the GPLv2's prohibition against imposing further restrictions on licensees.

I do not have a problem with them basing a distro on EHEL sources, for years I ran Scientific Linux on one of my systems and thought it was great, just what a distro should be.

My issue is with Rocky and Alma taking the RHEL sources, creating a bit-for-bit binary compatible version and then marketing it to Red Hat's customers as a direct replacement for RHEL, with the promise that it will be a direct replacement for RHEL.

That's just spitting in Red Hat's face, this is the part that's a truly low-class dick move.

If you remove the name Rocky and Alma and replace them with Nvidia, which people on this forum love to rag about, would you still feel the same?

Let's assume Nvidia says we want to get in the software side of the HPC market, so we are going to take the RHEL sources, rebrand them as Nvidia Linux, with the guarantee that it will track the official RHEL release and we will make sure our version is bit-for-bit identical, and we are going to market it as a direct RHEL replacement at a lower cost, would you and the others taking Rocky's and Alma's side be cool with Nvidia doing this?

Or how about Apple, who may be more hated than Nvidia on this forum, what if Apple did what Rocky and Alma want to do?

Even better.

Consider this scenario:

Rocky and Alma succeed in doing what they want to do and both of them build a thriving business that take a large chunk of IBM's/RH's business.

Then in a couple of years, it comes to light that Nvidia, Microsoft and/or Apple have decided to take the Rocky/Alma sources and build a business that directly competes with Rocky's and Alma's but is offered at a lowered price, thus taking market share away from Rocky/Alma.

What would you and the rest of the Rocky/Alma supporters say then? What would the Rocky/Alma people say then?

Would they says "well it's ok because of the GPL and blah blah bullshit blah blah" or would they scream bloody murder?

I think we all know the answer to that.

The GPL needs to have a 4th revision that adds the sentence "Don't be a dick".

[sophisticles]

(Also Microsoft's CBL-Mariner distro *does* use RPM specs from RH, Centos, Fedora, everywhere. They are keeping quiet.)

If "they" are keeping quite then how do you know?

[sophisticles]

So you are saying that Red Hat are stealing from hundreds of thousands of open-source developers since it is their sole source of source code in their Enterprise Linux product?

I think having a quick read of what the GPL is and why open-source programmers "develop code for free?????!!!" would be beneficial to you.

You have it backwards, Red Hat has contributed significant amounts of code in the form of bug fixes, drivers and specific applications, going back to the early days of Linux.

Linux as it exists today would not exist without all the code that Red Hat, Intel, AMD, HP, SUSE and other large corporations have contributed over the years.

These companies, and the community as a whole, profit from investments they these companies made.

[kpedersen]

If "they" are keeping quite then how do you know?

because I can clearly see it on the previously linked CBL-Mariner GitHub repo. Just read through some of the .Specs.

You have it backwards, Red Hat has contributed significant amounts of code in the form of bug fixes, drivers and specific applications, going back to the early days of Linux.

They have certainly taken more than they have contributed. Linux was built by the little guys from inception.

Have a look through the kernel lists. You will be impressed at just how much guys in their free time have achieved. Don't allow your mind to arrive at the incorrect conclusion that "only a big fancy company with a big fancy brand" can take the industry forward. That is naive and self-defeatist.

Linux *is* one of the most successful projects in the world because they didn't bow down to corporate ideals. "The only way is Microsoft" and all that kind of nonsense.

Linux as it exists today would not exist without all the code that Red Hat, Intel, AMD, HP, SUSE and other large corporations have contributed over the years.

BSDs have proven that an OS project is quite capable without Red Hat and a fraction of company involvement. Plus look at Microsoft Windows and how trashy that is. That has all the company involvement in the world. Microsoft, Intel, Nvidia, HP, IBM, etc, etc, etc.

To clarify, companies *are* useful. But you don't need to bend over for them as your masters . In this area, they need open-source developers more than we need them.

These companies, and the community as a whole, profit from investments they these companies made.

Yes. So why can only Red Hat package up people's (including my) software and not Rocky or Alma?

Is it because their logo is cooler?

[sophisticles]

They have certainly taken more than they have contributed. Linux was built by the little guys from inception.

Have a look through the kernel lists. You will be impressed at just how much guys in their free time have achieved. Don't allow your mind to arrive at the incorrect conclusion that "only a big fancy company with a big fancy brand" can take the industry forward. That is naive and self-defeatist.

Linux *is* one of the most successful projects in the world because they didn't bow down to corporate ideals. "The only way is Microsoft" and all that kind of nonsense.

Pure BS.

Without all the code that HP has contributed printing on Linux would still suck.

Without all the code that AMD has contributed, GPU acceleration with AMD cards would still be back where it was with ATI cards and Voodoo cards back in the day, a shit show.

I remember trying to get my ATI 9700 Pro working under Red Hat, Mandrake, Slackware and SUSE and wanting to tear my hair out.

Without all the code various companies have contributed networking on Linux would still be a joke, I remember the days of trying to get my onboard NIC working with various Linux distros and just wanting to throw the compiter out the window.

BSDs have proven that an OS project is quite capable without Red Hat and a fraction of company involvement. Plus look at Microsoft Windows and how trashy that is. That has all the company involvement in the world. Microsoft, Intel, Nvidia, HP, IBM, etc, etc, etc.

The BSD's have proven the exact opposite. I remember as recently as 10 years ago trying to get a Sound Blaster working under FreeBSD and it being impossible and I remember trying to get even basic 3d acceleration with a commodity video card and being told "who needs GPU acceleration" when i asked for help on a BSD forum.

The only BSD that is top notch is Mac OS, if we stretch the definition of BSD to include anything that started with the kernel.

Otherwise, BSD is not ready for everyday use, as evidenced by the abysmal failure of Ubuntu BSD.

Yes. So why can only Red Hat package up people's (including my) software and not Rocky or Alma?

Is it because their logo is cooler?

Red Hat, all the other vendors, do a lot more than just package up other people's software, years ago i tried to make my own distro by just packaging up software, i took the vanilla kernel, bash, and some init scripts and managed to bootstrap a working distro but the truth is that it sucked, it was barely usable.

I even created my own knoppix remaster, because they used to make it very easy to remaster their distro and i still was not happy with the results.

I realized just how much work there was in making something that works smoothly.

[milo_hoffman]

Without all the code that HP has contributed printing on Linux would still suck.

Not reality. Printing improvemts in Linux came from adopting CUPS and moving away from unix LPR. Apple provided the most support and assistance to the CUPS project than anyone becuse they adopted it as the printing system in MacOS. I don't think HP did much of anything in comparison.

[oiaohm]

The FPCA isn't specifically for Spec files. These come from all over, including imports from GPL licensed projects.
Some are directly imported from SUSE for example.

I can see some evidence of GPL in EPEL here.

However, it indeed looks like Fedora has MIT: here.

You are right, you can't assume, you need to go through each changelog of each rpm spec along with the individual software licenses.
I feel a new job vacancy has just opened at Red Hat!

That GPL in that epal-release.spec is about the contents of the RPM not the license of the spec file.

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=7795259

Yes other spec files you will notice license is MIT and the like. Redhat for simple not hand everything over can auto filter if does not contain "*GPL*" and other license with source release requirement don't end over updates. Remember this includes items like libinput you know the bit you use for a mouse when graphical that is apache then items like postgresql... list goes on.

[oiaohm]

Spec files and SRPMS associated with any GPL licensed source code, seem to automatically also be under the GPL because those are part of the associated definition files and scripts use for compilation and installation of the executables. That is pretty much exactly what the spec files and srpms are..

This is not as black and white and one would hope.

complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

You have to remember IBM legal will be reading this. There was a prior case with GPL program using closed source setup/install program that was legally disputed back in the 1990s. The closed source setup program was not required to be open source and the script used by the setup program was not required to be handed over.

With the source files from inside the SRPM and a small amount of information can you build the executable.

So yes if Redhat/IBM wants to play hard ball they can say that the combined tar.gz with the key bits of the srpm put out as scripts that being prep/build/install or equal meets that requirement. Of course for every package that is not GPL or equal license we are giving nothing not even the changed sources.

http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-scripts.html

The start of each script is denoted by a keyword. For example, the %build keyword marks the start of the script RPM will execute when building the software to be packaged. It should be noted that, in the strictest sense of the word, these parts of the spec file are not scripts. For example, they do not start with the traditional invocation of a shell. However, the contents of each script section are copied into a file and executed by RPM as a full-fledged script. This is part of the power of RPM: Anything that can be done in a script can be done by RPM.

This is one of these catches. Spec files are not scripts legally. They are archive storing scripts that automatically extracts on need. GPL says installation of executable nothing about having to provide any scripts to uninstall the program. There is a lot more in the spec files than what GPL requires redhat to hand over.

Spec files are not interface definition files either.

The scripts from spec file that has to be handed over to meet the GPL requirement is the prep, build, install, pre and post. That roughly half the scripts contained in the spec file. Also changelog should be exported as well.

milo_hoffman missed GPL asked for the scripts for particular tasks and SPEC file is a script archive that has scripts for other tasks. Complete source code as defined by GPL is reached before hand over the spec file of course its having RPMBUILD extract the contained scripts that it can do yes RPMBUILD can make the prep, build, install, pre and post shell files and the change-log file and then package that up into tar.gz.

SRPMS are archive Most people miss you can build RPM files without SRPMS. Redhat makes SRPMS as a convenience/optional thing. This is the catch here.

Yes redhat could also make SRPMS with cut down spec files that contain a spec file that the binary installs but as soon as you run the RPM uninstall command from the built RPM the thing absolutely fails. Remember GPL license has not asked for uninstall ability.

milo_hoffman the trap here. Spec files provide the scripts for erasure(uninstall), testing, clean up after compilation, compilation and installation of the executable but GPL only asks for compilation and installation of the executables. Providing srpm and full spec file is exceeding what GPL asks for.

Think a distribution where you cannot uninstall anything is not good right.

[kpedersen]

That GPL in that epal-release.spec is about the contents of the RPM not the license of the spec file.

As another user mentioned further up, the GPL also covers build scripts to be licensed under the same software. Now, whether this includes further 3rd party build scripts (i.e ports makefiles, rpm specs, deb control files) is probably less defined.

Remember this includes items like libinput you know the bit you use for a mouse when graphical that is apache then items like postgresql... list goes on.

Not me personally but I believe others have migrated to it by now. Yep, RH will need to filter these out. Perhaps they will. Will be interesting to see for the wider community.

Pure BS.

Without all the code that HP has contributed printing on Linux would still suck.

I would respond but the example you gave is too lame to really warrant a rebuttal. C'mon, AMD GPU drivers! Heck, even the tenuous help given by NVidia for Nouveau would have been more worthwhile. If your savior was HP then I think you are awarding too much on the companies compared to the people who actually make Linux work.

I remember as recently as 10 years ago trying to get a Sound Blaster working under FreeBSD and it being impossible and I remember trying to get even basic 3d acceleration with a commodity video card and being told "who needs GPU acceleration" when i asked for help on a BSD forum.

This is possibly more valid. Though since I run both a Sound Blaster and a commodity video card quite happily... I can only assume your hardware was physically broken. Perhaps it ran on Linux fine for you because the drivers were equally broken in-tree at the time. So it matched up?