Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AlmaLinux No Longer Aims For 1:1 Compatibility With RHEL

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by AmericanLocomotive View Post
    I just don't understand the point of Red Hat clones. I thought the whole point of using Red Hat, was so you could get the enterprise-level support and service. Weren't you free to use Red Hat without a subscription anyways? You just would not get any support from Red Hat.

    ...then all of these 1:1 clones popped up that offered the Red Hat experience ...without the Red Hat support. So what was the point?
    the point is that redhat trolls should be less obvious

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
    Good.

    Now Red Hat needs to finish turning the screws by taking a page out of the NFL's playbook.

    For those of you that don't know the NFL strictly control who and how the name Super Bowl is used, for instance you may have noticed that in any none NFL commercial it is always referred to as "The Big Game" or something similar but no one outside the NFL is allowed to use Super Bowl because it is trademarked and the NFL aggressively protects that trademark.

    Red Hat should do the same thing and say that going forward no one is allowed to claim they are or are not binary or bug-for-bug compatible with RHEL, Red Hat or any reference to Red Hat's software.

    If these people want to build a Linux based business then let them do it on their own, no more free ride.
    Do you get mayo with your sandwich for trolling ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Barley9432 View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • mSparks
    replied
    Originally posted by novideo View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • novideo
    replied
    Originally posted by mSparks View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • virr
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • mSparks
    replied
    Originally posted by novideo View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • novideo
    replied
    Originally posted by mSparks View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • mSparks
    replied
    Originally posted by novideo View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • novideo
    replied
    Originally posted by mSparks View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X