It's nice that they are clear, now:
No Red Hat unless you pay them for it. If you pay them for it, you can't redistribute it.
A response to the git.centos.org changes
11–20 of 184 posts
Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes
#12> 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.
> ....
> There was a time, not too long ago, that Red Hat found value in the work done by rebuilders like CentOS. We pushed our SRPMs out to git.centos.org in a neat package that made them easy to rebuild; we even de-branded it for them. More recently, we have determined that there isn’t value in having a downstream rebuilder.
All in all, this line of commentary really shows to me that FLOSS software and community is at diametric odds with commercialism and capitalism.
One side (FLOSS) is about building and working together, even if there's bumps and bruises. In the end, everyone benefits because everyone is helping each other. FLOSS is obvious area, but so is the fediverse like Mastodon, Matrix, Lemmy, and others.
The commercial/capitalist way is to erect walls and gates, initially set them low/no barriers, and then over time extract money for access to the arbitrarily gated areas. We see this in reddit, discord, github, gitlab, redhat, etc. And then those companies will start out open, and slowly close each avenue until people are either forced to pay up, or leave. Cory Doctorow talks about this with "enshittification". "Internet of Shit", for IoT goods, is a similar anti-feature-fest where you pay more and get less over time.
Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes
#13I'd love to see the actual metrics behind this decision making, but it seems like confirmation of my suspicion that most RHEL customers think they are paying for the software rather than the support, and many would prefer not to pay for the support or get it cheaper elsewhere. When you go to redhat.com and start getting funneled towards buying a license, the average user would not be able to tell. Also the number of users that care about 10+ year old backports may be shrinking in the era of VMs/Containers with hermetic build systems and elastic compute.
Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes
#14>Red Hat uses and will always use an open source development model
Yes, I do not mean to sound harsh but I do not know how say this in a nice way. To me, this means we will still happily take work from our volunteers, but we will restrict other people from using this work so we can get more $. But thank you volunteers for keeping our payroll low and helping out our stockholders.
I really think this is another small step to what I believe is the corporate take over of Linux.
Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes
#15> 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 cont…
We have been told that RH's business model is selling support for a complex and constantly improving platform which is given away for free. Redhat is supposed to represent having someone to call when you don't want to bring in a consultant or hire a Debian expert, not a "seat license for Linux." Part of the difficulty that RH is facing is in trying to undo the expectations set by years and years of marketing - we were all told their business model was really in support.
Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes
#16> 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.
Yet still correct.
I am not a Red Hat user or customer (I've been living on Debian and using it at work for nearly 15 years now), but I can perfectly understand their decision to not play along so nicely with EL rebuilders any more.
Look at Amazon, who, until very recently at least, simply took what RHEL provided, used that to lure customers into their "RHEL-compatible" cloud platform, far away from any need to compensate Red Hat in any way, and contributed back into RHEL and its upstreams... what exactly?
I can see this only become worse with other cloud heavyweights throwing their 800+ pounds behind other EL downstreams (such as Microsoft with Alma Linux) to continue this play, which will bleed most of Red Hat's established revenue streams - and with it, RHEL itself, and all the projects Red Hat is funding development of today - dry in the long run. They are trying to stop the bleeding, and I sure hope they will succeed. There is a LOT of Red Hat-funded software in Debian that I actually depend on, and if Red Hat withers away, chances are those projects will not survive either.
Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes
#17> 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 w…
No; Red Hat packages things - the rebuilders are just taking all the packages and rebranding.
More analogous (perhaps? I don't know) would be if someone forked an open source project you maintained and slapped their own brand on it.
Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes
#18> 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.
I'd go a step further and say a lot of the anger is general angst at the _everything_ of the world, but RHEL's changes provided a focusing point in the nerd world. Or at least that's how I've come to terms with my weird interest in this story (and Reddit nonsense and the submersible story).
When everything sucks, it seems very easy to misdirect that angst at whatever is pitchfork-trendy.
Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
you can't expect someone who wants to be angry to voluntarily ingest information which would make them less angry, you know.
Re: A response to the git.centos.org changes
#20We don’t simply take upstream packages and rebuild them
Are they seriously claiming they contribute to every one of the tens of thousands of packages they include in their repo? I'd like to see some proof of that.
If they're taking any open source app, and just including it in their repo without at least 1 RH patch.. then they are "simply tak[ing] upstream packages and rebuild[ing] them".
RedHat absolutely makes money from upstream OSS contributors, and not all of those projects get money or patches from RedHat.