Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 339 posts

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#11

Post by 5e92cb50239222b »

chasil wrote: post #6

If Red Hat chooses not to perform their duties under the GPL, then any holder of copyright can require Red Hat to remove the owner's source packages from the commercial distribution. Red Hat could minimally perform this duty by providing the source only to those who download the binary releases. As there are several avenues for free downloads (developer, 16 free licenses for small business, etc.), the source will be…

I doubt most RHEL packages use the GPL. They were publishing full source out of goodness of their hearts (or maybe to conquer more market share and then potentially convert some of that into sales if you're more cynical).

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#12

Post by Timon3 »

a2tech wrote: post #3

I don’t understand what game IBM is playing with Red Hat. I was under the impression they were profitable prior to the acquisition so I’m not sure why they’re squeezing so hard and ruining the great brand and good will Red Hat had built up.

IBM is stuck in a cycle of constant re-invention, because they somehow manage to always re-invent themselves in ways that are even worse and more complicated for customers, which they try to fix by re-inventing themselves again. Even if they initially planned on leaving Red Hat alone, every re-invention is a chance for some executive to make the decision to squeeze a little tighter on existing customers. So the question shouldn't be "what game is IBM playing with Red Hat", but "how long until nothing usable is left". I'd say maybe 20 more re-inventions, or 1-2 years.

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#14

Post by 5e92cb50239222b »

Timon3 wrote: post #12
a2tech wrote: post #3

I don’t understand what game IBM is playing with Red Hat. I was under the impression they were profitable prior to the acquisition so I’m not sure why they’re squeezing so hard and ruining the great brand and good will Red Hat had built up.

IBM is stuck in a cycle of constant re-invention, because they somehow manage to always re-invent themselves in ways that are even worse and more complicated for customers, which they try to fix by re-inventing themselves again. Even if they initially planned on leaving Red Hat alone, every re-invention is a chance for some executive to make the decision to squeeze a little tighter on existing customers. So the quest…

Yet they're still way older than most tech companies. I'd wager they will outlive 99.99% of those unicorn startups yet.

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#15

Post by pavon »

chasil wrote: post #6

If Red Hat chooses not to perform their duties under the GPL, then any holder of copyright can require Red Hat to remove the owner's source packages from the commercial distribution. Red Hat could minimally perform this duty by providing the source only to those who download the binary releases. As there are several avenues for free downloads (developer, 16 free licenses for small business, etc.), the source will be…

> Red Hat could minimally perform this duty by providing the source only to those who download the binary releases.

The article states clearly that they are doing this, no need to speculate.

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#16

Post by dralley »

chasil wrote: post #6

If Red Hat chooses not to perform their duties under the GPL, then any holder of copyright can require Red Hat to remove the owner's source packages from the commercial distribution. Red Hat could minimally perform this duty by providing the source only to those who download the binary releases. As there are several avenues for free downloads (developer, 16 free licenses for small business, etc.), the source will be…

>Red Hat could minimally perform this duty by providing the source only to those who download the binary releases. As there are several avenues for free downloads (developer, 16 free licenses for small business, etc.), the source will be available by that route.

If you read the original announcement, this is exactly the case

"For Red Hat customers and partners, source code will remain available via the Red Hat Customer Portal."

In theory nothing prevents Rocky and Alma from buying a license, downloading the sources, and rebuilding the packages from there. The terms of service restrict only redistribution of binaries, not sources, and the GPL dictates that those would remain available.

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#17

Post by pjmlp »

Timon3 wrote: post #12
a2tech wrote: post #3

I don’t understand what game IBM is playing with Red Hat. I was under the impression they were profitable prior to the acquisition so I’m not sure why they’re squeezing so hard and ruining the great brand and good will Red Hat had built up.

IBM is stuck in a cycle of constant re-invention, because they somehow manage to always re-invent themselves in ways that are even worse and more complicated for customers, which they try to fix by re-inventing themselves again. Even if they initially planned on leaving Red Hat alone, every re-invention is a chance for some executive to make the decision to squeeze a little tighter on existing customers. So the quest…

Many startups can only dream of being as long and influential as IBM is.

Also note that IBM contributions to Linux kernel in 2000, was one of the reasons it actually took off.

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#18

Post by marwatk »

BossingAround wrote: post #4

I don't get what's the big deal--essentially the only thing being lost is a pointer to commit that marks the difference between RHEL X.Y and X.Y+1..?

RedHat spends a lot of time back-porting security updates to older software (e.g. RHEL7). Stream is always only the latest RHEL version, I believe.

The whole point of RHEL is the long term support (the back-porting), which is what they're going to stop publishing.

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#19

Post by Timon3 »

pjmlp wrote: post #17
Timon3 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM is stuck in a cycle of constant re-invention, because they somehow manage to always re-invent themselves in ways that are even worse and more complicated for customers, which they try to fix by re-inventing themselves again. Even if they initially planned on leaving Red Hat alone, every re-invention is a chance for some executive to make the decision to squeeze a little tighter on existing customers. So the quest…

Many startups can only dream of being as long and influential as IBM is. Also note that IBM contributions to Linux kernel in 2000, was one of the reasons it actually took off.

> Many startups can only dream of being as long and influential as IBM is.

Okay? Do you feel attacked because I wrote something negative about IBM? Not sure how that is relevant to my point.

> Also note that IBM contributions to Linux kernel in 2000, was one of the reasons it actually took off.

And that influences the motivations behind their current decisions how exactly?

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#20

Post by chasil »

5e92cb50239222b wrote: post #11
chasil wrote: post #6

If Red Hat chooses not to perform their duties under the GPL, then any holder of copyright can require Red Hat to remove the owner's source packages from the commercial distribution. Red Hat could minimally perform this duty by providing the source only to those who download the binary releases. As there are several avenues for free downloads (developer, 16 free licenses for small business, etc.), the source will be…

I doubt most RHEL packages use the GPL. They were publishing full source out of goodness of their hearts (or maybe to conquer more market share and then potentially convert some of that into sales if you're more cynical).

The kernel, the compiler, the C library, and the init system have more sway than various packages under BSD, MIT, or other licensing.
Post reply on HN