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

[oiaohm]

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.

That the thing prior cases over some this stuff with difference licenses says items like rpm specs and deb control files and windows setup scripts.. are independent works. That why what license is the spec file itself is important. Fedora licensing say they are MIT license and even early Redhat they were MIT licensing.

GPL terms only technically cover part of what contained in the Spec file. Its simple to miss that GPL has no requirement that you must be given the tools to uninstall the program or automatically run the test suite or clean up after building. Mose people using distribution want to be able to uninstall old version to install new version to update.

Redhat playing to letter of law really would not be good for Rocky. Container images lets say they are atomic images the srpms contain that way could nicely be missing the uninstall extras. Same with cloud instances.

pay-per-use public cloud instances there problems here.

Rocky is forgetting atomic host of Redhat. This means your general Linux install and your cloud based in fact can be different beasts. Think fedora normal vs fedora silverblue. Fedora silverblue os the atomic host one.

[gfunk]

What is wrong with using CentOS stream on personal/SMB/Misc hosts, is it really buggy?

[smitty3268]

You need to realize that Red Hat does not "sell" RHEL.

RHEL is GPL licensed and it is FREE. You can make as many copies as you want of RHEL and not pay anything to anyone for it.

Red Hat only sells subscriptions for SUPPORT services, and access to their update repositories.

They do not sell end user use "licenses" to RHE, like Microsoft does for Windows, RHEL is already GPL licensed.

I know that perfectly well, this is all just semantics.

Fine then.

If MS decides to create a bit-for-bit copy of RHEL and sells support services at half the price Red Hat does for their services/support because MS can take advantage of all the basic work Red Hat does to maintain their distro, would that be considered a reasonable and proper thing for MS to do? Or would it be considered the first step in an evil EEE plan to destroy linux?

Is that better?

[Quackdoc]

so much for that whole spiel about the centos stream gitlab being perfectly adequate, how is it that both alma and rocky are seemingly needing to find other workarounds if the entire RHEL code is still hosted on that gitlab? it was heavily implied that the gitlab would be perfectly sufficient for these "simple rebuilders" to work from. It's starting to feel like it was a deliberate lie now.

perhaps someone from RHEL or an affiliated party can help get these rebuilders on the right track to use these centos stream repos if it wasn't a lie and both rocky and alma are somehow mistaken on the steps they need to take?

[oiaohm]

What is wrong with using CentOS stream on personal/SMB/Misc hosts, is it really buggy?

https://tuxcare.com/blog/when-migrating-to-centos-stream-makes-sense-and-when-it-does-not/

This covers the basic problems. CentOS Stream is like using Windows developer edition where updates could ruin your day.

Personal usage little bit of down time here or their could be quite ok.

SMB(I guess you mean small business) not so much because one stuffed update lots of downtime. This is kind why debian stable exists as well.

Yes fun one is Redhat Certified applications those applications that are not made by redhat(yes they are closed source) you only get support if using RHEL or a 1 to 1 compatible distribution.

[ppcorp]

I know that perfectly well, this is all just semantics.

Fine then.

If MS decides to create a bit-for-bit copy of RHEL and sells support services at half the price Red Hat does for their services/support because MS can take advantage of all the basic work Red Hat does to maintain their distro, would that be considered a reasonable and proper thing for MS to do? Or would it be considered the first step in an evil EEE plan to destroy linux?

Is that better?

You're a bit too late. Oracle has been doing exactly that for a while

[ppcorp]

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.

Your comment is so good important I needed to quote it for emphasis

[mSparks]

I think Rocky and Alma Linux should just base themselves off:

https://yum.oracle.com/oracle-linux-isos.html

And everyone should just forget RH. RH are clearly violating numerous copyrights and no one should assist them in that.

[kpedersen]

Your comment is so good important I needed to quote it for emphasis

Indeed. It is bizarre that people think RH, Rocky, Alma, you, me can ever be restricted from using code written by the open-source community. Why do people think the GPL exists in the first place!?

What no-one can *ever* do is close the GPL source code up again. RH is finding this out sooner or later. Glad we agree.

[grung]

What is wrong with using CentOS stream on personal/SMB/Misc hosts, is it really buggy?

In my opinion it is very bad idea as there is no upgrade path for Centos stream.

I could be wrong be I'm pretty sure that you can't migrate from stream 8 to stream 9.

For personal use it is better to use a distro which you can upgrade - that's my view. Something like Debian ,Suse or Ubuntu.