A response to the git.centos.org changes
redhat.com
A response to the git.centos.org changes
1–10 of 184 posts
Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes
#2> Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source, and one that has the potential to revert open source back into a hobbyist- and hackers-only activity.
So... completely tone deaf.
Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes
#3Sounds like they think of Rocky as the enemy, 'under no obligation' to make it easier, 'rebuilding code' is a 'threat'... I have a project in RHEL that they 'rebuild' but I don't see that as a 'threat'.
They want to be a little bit more careful with dogma that makes sense to their management, will get them patted on the head there, but is just nonsense seen from other perspectives - like my perspective contributing to their project for free.
Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes
#4> Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source, and one that has the potential to revert open source back into a hobbyist- and hackers-only activity. So... completely tone deaf.
It's not a GPL violation, but it's definitely a willful misinterpretation of it's goals. They're using a lot of mental gymnastics to try and make themselves out as the good guys here:
> I feel that much of the anger from our recent decision around the downstream sources comes from either those who do not want to pay for the time, effort and resources going into RHEL or those who want to repackage it for their own profit. This demand for RHEL code is disingenuous.
The demand for RHEL code is genuine. The expectation of a return on investment is the disingenuous part. GPL does not give you the right to deny others a genuine copy of your code. If someone pays for a RHEL license and then mirrors all the GPL packages, they would feasibly be complying with all the licenses in play. Putting up all these roadblocks and assuming self-righteousness is how the community loses trust in a platform like this.
Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes
#5> Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source, and one that has the potential to revert open source back into a hobbyist- and hackers-only activity. So... completely tone deaf.
They gotta eat, how do you propose to feed them? I'm pretty sure if all paid Redhat developers stopped contributing it would be a massive blow to the Linux ecosystem that would not readily be replaced by volunteers. They employ people who work on every fundamental pillar of kernel space and userspace. Even if the fired devs wanted to continue contributing, it would probably be reduced hours compared to what they contributed before, because they will be simultaneously doing a different job in order to eat.
Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes
#6> Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source, and one that has the potential to revert open source back into a hobbyist- and hackers-only activity
Doesn't Red Hat do the same thing for many packages? Do they substantially contribute to every single project they distribute?
I wonder if this will lead to the creation and mass adoption of GPL v4 explicitly forbidding this loophole(and others which have popped up over the years).
Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes
#7> Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source, and one that has the potential to revert open source back into a hobbyist- and hackers-only activity. So... completely tone deaf.
I always wrote off RMS as some sort of pedantic policy wonk in the argument of "free software" vs "open source".
But now I realize he was right the whole time.
Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes
#8> Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source, and one that has the potential to revert open source back into a hobbyist- and hackers-only activity. So... completely tone deaf.
It's not a GPL violation, but it's definitely a willful misinterpretation of it's goals. They're using a lot of mental gymnastics to try and make themselves out as the good guys here: > I feel that much of the anger from our recent decision around the downstream sources comes from either those who do not want to pay for the time, effort and resources going into RHEL or those who want to repackage it for their own pro…
They explicitly point out all of the code is still available.
Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes
#9So they take stuff other people wrote... and they take it for free... and it's ok... then they might do a patch here or there... and if someone takes that, it's somehow bad, because they don't get the money for that?
What if they don't patch anything, aren't they just "rebuilders" too?
Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes
#10> Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source, and one that has the potential to revert open source back into a hobbyist- and hackers-only activity. So... completely tone deaf.
Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....