Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AlmaLinux's ELevate Begins Handling EPEL Repositories

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

  • spicfoo
    replied
    Originally posted by mSparks View Post

    What is new is before they were not using that agreement to distribute software, only their branding..
    Can you provide a source for this? I see the exact same verbiage in the support agreement all the way back to RHEL 2.1, their first enterprise release from 2002 and nothing has changed there as far as I can tell.

    Leave a comment:


  • mSparks
    replied
    Originally posted by spicfoo View Post

    Again, nothing in that agreement is new. The way GPL works since everyone involved from upstream to all downstreams must have the same rights. The agreement explicitly says they don't restrict any of the open source licenses and both the vendor themselves and rebuilders are exercising the rights as provided. I don't see a way how a vendor could violate the license without impacting the downstreams. If your understanding of this is shared with any of the thousands of contributors involved here, there would be a lawsuit. Hence, I am going to conclude they are technically complying with the terms of the license. Moving on.
    What is new is before they were not using that agreement to distribute gpl software, only their branding.

    Now they exclusively distribute other peoples software they stuck their logo on under that licence. Software pirates with nothing to contribute that you really shouldn't associate yourself with.
    Last edited by mSparks; 07 December 2023, 10:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • spicfoo
    replied
    Originally posted by mSparks View Post

    But they cant use the gpl licence to distribute software under that agreement, of course it doesnt affect "your rights". Its them that are the software pirates.
    Again, nothing in that agreement is new. The way GPL works since everyone involved from upstream to all downstreams must have the same rights. The agreement explicitly says they don't restrict any of the open source licenses and both the vendor themselves and rebuilders are exercising the rights as provided. I don't see a way how a vendor could violate the license without impacting the downstreams. If your understanding of this is shared with any of the thousands of contributors involved here, there would be a lawsuit. Hence, I am going to conclude they are technically complying with the terms of the license. Moving on.

    Leave a comment:


  • mSparks
    replied
    Originally posted by spicfoo View Post

    The document you linked is a support agreement. It's not new and says this: "This Agreement establishes the rights and obligations associated with Subscription Services and is not intended to limit your rights to software code under the terms of an open source license."
    But they cant use the gpl licence to distribute software under that agreement, of course it doesnt affect "your rights". Its them that are the software pirates.

    But if you feel like defending software piracy, feel free, it was always cool and hip to copy that floppy. Just not a bridge I'm personally willing to cross.
    Last edited by mSparks; 07 December 2023, 09:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • spicfoo
    replied
    Originally posted by mSparks View Post

    Nothing they distribute is gpl licenced any more, they changed the licence of everything they distribute in June of this year
    The document you linked is a support agreement. It's not new and says this: "This Agreement establishes the rights and obligations associated with Subscription Services and is not intended to limit your rights to software code under the terms of an open source license."

    You can confirm this readily by looking at the source code that RHEL branches from. The individual components including the kernel is still under the GPL license as you can see in https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-str...ref_type=heads

    That's why all the rebuilders are able to continue to use the source code that Red Hat publishes. If they were violating the license, there would be a lawsuit already and I am not aware of any. Are you?

    Leave a comment:


  • mSparks
    replied
    Originally posted by spicfoo View Post

    That’s very odd because it is a large company and they would have been sued quickly in that case Do you have a source for this? Which software exactly ?
    Nothing they distribute is gpl licenced any more, they changed the licence of everything they distribute in June of this year and started pretending they wrote all of linux.

    Its instead now theoretically licenced under:


    Which is BS straight up software piracy.

    For commercial gain to, when the dust settles I expect I expect hefty fines, but even before then, don't need to give them any credit for stuff they may or may not have done in the past.

    At least when someone at microsoft went and
    For example: https://github.com/Microsoft/DirectXShaderCompiler/blob/master/utils/PerfectShuffle/PerfectShuffle.cpp vs. https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/utils/PerfectShuffle/PerfectS...


    They had the good sense to fix it.
    Last edited by mSparks; 07 December 2023, 09:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • spicfoo
    replied
    Originally posted by mSparks View Post

    Distributing copies of other peoples software without a licence to do so. The same as all software pirates.
    That’s very odd because it is a large company and they would have been sued quickly in that case Do you have a source for this? Which software exactly ?

    Leave a comment:


  • mSparks
    replied
    Originally posted by spicfoo View Post

    How did they become pirates?
    Distributing copies of other peoples software without a licence to do so. The same as all software pirates.

    Leave a comment:


  • spicfoo
    replied
    Originally posted by mSparks View Post

    that, nothing really.

    But recently they crossed the threshold into outright software pirates, so now they dont get any credit for anything they may or may not have done in the past.

    f em, and the horse they road in on.
    How did they become pirates? They still contribute code upstream as usual. They still publish sources in https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/ The only change I can see is that they do make every tag available corresponding to their source rpms in their public branch which no license has ever required. It hasn't really changed anything substantial about rebuilders like Alma, Rocky, SUSE, Oracle who all continue to do their thing. What am I missing?

    Leave a comment:


  • mSparks
    replied
    Originally posted by spicfoo View Post

    What’s your beef with that?
    that, nothing really.

    But recently they crossed the threshold into outright software pirates, so now they dont get any credit for anything they may or may not have done in the past.

    f em, and the horse they rode in on.
    Last edited by mSparks; 07 December 2023, 08:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X