AlmaLinux No Longer Aims For 1:1 Compatibility With RHEL

[novideo]

It does however require them to release that source code without additional restrictions with prominent notices of any changes they have made. The source they distribute via redhat accounts attaches additional restrictions on source and binary redistribution, which they cannot use the GPL for.

They have not added any additional restrictions. You can freely download as much Red Hat source code as you want from the Red Hat download portal, and share it with as many people as you want to, using your rights under the GPL. However, if you do that, Red Hat can kick you off the portal, and not send any more updates or provide any more support. This is 100% compliant with the GPL. The GPL only requires making the source code available for the current version of the program, not any future version, and certainly doesn't require the developer to provide support to the users.

[mSparks]

They have not added any additional restrictions. You can freely download as much Red Hat source code as you want from the Red Hat download portal.

No you cant
https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Appe...h_20230309.pdf

Unauthorized use of the Subscription Services includes: (a) only purchasing or renewing Subscription Services based on some of the total number of Units, (b) splitting or applying one Software Subscription to two or more Units, (c) providing Subscription Services (in whole or in part) to third parties, (d) using Subscription Services in connection with any redistribution of Software or (e) using Subscription Services to support or maintain any non-Red Hat Software products without purchasing Subscription Services for each such instance (collectively, “Unauthorized Subscription Services Uses”).

Which means no one can use the red hat download portal for the distribution or download of modified GPL software without being software pirates.
They do, so they are,
both Red Hat, and anyone using the Red Hat portal to download/distribute modified GPL software.

They can and did use it for the distribution of unmodified GPL software, which was the situation before they stopped updating CentOS with their modifications, but that is no longer possible without a significant risk of a court summons for software piracy in the not to distant future.

With the announcement in the OP, Alma Linux have shown they very rightly decided not to support software piracy.

[novideo]

No you cant
https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Appe...h_20230309.pdf

Unauthorized use of the Subscription Services includes: (a) only purchasing or renewing Subscription Services based on some of the total number of Units, (b) splitting or applying one Software Subscription to two or more Units, (c) providing Subscription Services (in whole or in part) to third parties, (d) using Subscription Services in connection with any redistribution of Software or (e) using Subscription Services to support or maintain any non-Red Hat Software products without purchasing Subscription Services for each such instance (collectively, “Unauthorized Subscription Services Uses”).

Which means no one can use the red hat download portal for the distribution or download of modified GPL software without being software pirates.
They do, so they are,
both Red Hat, and anyone using the Red Hat portal to download/distribute modified GPL software.

They can and did use it for the distribution of unmodified GPL software, which was the situation before they stopped updating CentOS with their modifications, but that is no longer possible without a significant risk of a court summons for software piracy in the not to distant future.

With the announcement in the OP, Alma Linux have shown they very rightly decided not to support software piracy.

Those are Red Hat terms of service, not the license for the software, which are completely different things. If you share Red Hat software against Red Hat ToS, you lose Red Hat service, which means you lose updates and technical support, but you do not lose your right to share the source code or any other right under the GPL. There is no violation of the GPL or any other FOSS license here. I think Grsecurity does the same thing.

[mSparks]

Those are Red Hat terms of service, not the license for the software, which are completely different things. If you share Red Hat software against Red Hat ToS, you lose Red Hat service, which means you lose updates and technical support, but you do not lose your right to share the source code or any other right under the GPL. There is no violation of the GPL or any other FOSS license here. I think Grsecurity does the same thing.

They are terms and conditions of using the redhat download portal.
They are incompatible with the GPL licence, therefore a GPL licence doesn't and cannot come with anything received from there.

To receive a valid GPL licence you'd have to get it from a source that is compatible with the GPL.
which doesn't exist
=piracy.

If it could, I could give you a licence to distribute the latest songs by Britney Spears "just" because valid licence to distribute the latest songs by Britney Spears exists somewhere else.
It's no different, anyone engaging in that trade at the very least is likely to end up in court.

[novideo]

They are terms and conditions of using the redhat download portal.
They are incompatible with the GPL licence, therefore a GPL licence doesn't and cannot come with anything received from there.

To receive a valid GPL licence you'd have to get it from a source that is compatible with the GPL.
which doesn't exist
=piracy.

If it could, I could give you a licence to distribute the latest songs by Britney Spears "just" because valid licence to distribute the latest songs by Britney Spears exists somewhere else.
It's no different, anyone engaging in that trade at the very least is likely to end up in court.

They aren't incompatible whatsoever as the terms and conditions are not a license which applies to the software. The GPL doesn't prevent Red Hat or anyone else from retaliating against you for sharing the source code and/or object code by refusing to provide you service. Red Hat only has to give you access to the source code from the download portal if they also give you access to the object code. If you share any source code or object code, you are free under the GPL to use your rights on the version you already downloaded, but they will cut you off from further access to both the source code and the object code. They can retaliate against you for using your rights under the GPL by refusing to provide updates and support.

[mSparks]

They aren't incompatible whatsoever as the terms and conditions are not a license which applies to the software. The GPL doesn't prevent Red Hat or anyone else from retaliating against you for sharing the source code and/or object code by refusing to provide you service. Red Hat only has to give you access to the source code from the download portal if they also give you access to the object code. If you share any source code or object code, you are free under the GPL to use your rights on the version you already downloaded, but they will cut you off from further access to both the source code and the object code. They can retaliate against you for using your rights under the GPL by refusing to provide updates and support.

GPL licence term 6 invalidates the licence and stops it transferring when distributed on the Red hat portal with those portal terms:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

So it was distributed without a licence to do so, and the recipients do not get a licence.

Key difference here is prior to the deletion of the CentOS repo, they were simply redistributing unmodified binaries, (with different art assets). Everyone can do that under whatever terms they want, the licence for everyone came from the repo with a licence (centos).
Now they dont have centos to distribute that licence
so all the code after they stopped updating centos is distributed modified binaries with no licence to do so.
=piracy.

[virr]

I'm really hoping that Valve is paying attention enough to realize that a lot of us would fucking love Arch Linux Enterprise. ALE. The beta could be Pale ALE. Clone RHEL or SUSE and swap out DNF for Pacman.

" A lot of" ppl like you doesn't mean any corporation willing to use uncertified software to run on their production server. And if there's only one option for them named "ALE", I can make sure for you that all those corps would like to use BSD for easier source control than funny pacman -Syu without knowing what they're pulling to their system. Ofc with your comment, 100% you have not touched to any Steam Deck, so easy to know that you don't understand what basement SteamOS based on

[novideo]

GPL licence term 6 invalidates the licence and stops it transferring when distributed on the Red hat portal with those portal terms:

So it was distributed without a licence to do so, and the recipients do not get a licence.

Key difference here is prior to the deletion of the CentOS repo, they were simply redistributing unmodified binaries, (with different art assets). Everyone can do that under whatever terms they want, the licence for everyone came from the repo with a licence (centos).
Now they dont have centos to distribute that licence
so all the code after they stopped updating centos is distributed modified binaries with no licence to do so.
=piracy.

This is completely wrong and not how the GPL works or is intended to work, but I don't feel like arguing anymore.

[mSparks]

This is completely wrong and not how the GPL works or is intended to work, but I don't feel like arguing anymore.

I absolutely agree that isnt how it was intended to work.

But it is how they argued they were compliant before, much to manys disapproval, but ultimate acceptance.

[Guest]

So exactly what CentOS Stream is doing, but instead Stream actually contributes to upstream instead of being leeches feeding of RedHat and giving nothing in return.

Hopefully these leech rebuilds like Alma, Rocky, Oracle all shutdown. They have been taking advantage of the good will of open source for far too long.

you redhat/ibm trolls should be less obvious