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

AlmaLinux stays Red Hat Enterprise Linux compatible without Red Hat code

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: AlmaLinux stays Red Hat Enterprise Linux compatible without Red Hat code

#11

Post by LeFantome »

LightFog wrote: post #9
mbakke wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we, as free software consumers, have become spoiled by the sheer amount of quality software and distros available for no charge, with all the freedoms, over the past couple decades. In my eyes this move is perfectly within the spirit of the GPL, which explicitly allows charging for the program. Crucially it makes no promise about future updates. Red Hat can terminate a subscription for a variety of reasons, n…

“In my eyes this move is perfectly within the spirit of the GPL” - The original author of the GPL disagrees with you - going from his recent responses.

I cannot speak for the “spirit” of the GPL but I can certainly read the text.

If the FSF wants to stop somebody from doing what Red Hat is doing ( which would long term be bad for Free Software in my view ), they are going to have to revise the license.

I guess the GPL4 will just be the next GPL license that the Linux kernel does not adopt as the differences between Free Software and Open Source start to diverge further.

Re: AlmaLinux stays Red Hat Enterprise Linux compatible without Red Hat code

#12

Post by LeFantome »

mbakke wrote: post #5
iseletsk wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying subscription and using it to build a distro would be against Red Hat Subscription agreement. I guess you missed all the drama of the summer, when Red Hat made it so.

You're right I did miss the details. Sorry for the inaccurate rant. Good for them. We all benefit from more players in this space, instead of just a bunch of RHEL clones.

You are speaking like somebody from an actual community. That definitely shows you missed the drama.

You are supposed to say that we all have a right to an “exact” unpaid replica of the full RHEL distribution that we will explicitly not modify or improve in any way but instead directly commercialize and monetize. We have the right to do this because the above behaviour embodies “the spirit of Open Source”. If Red Hat tries to stop us, it is because THEY are evil and greedy.

Re: AlmaLinux stays Red Hat Enterprise Linux compatible without Red Hat code

#13

Post by pepa65 »

mbakke wrote: post #3

Making a RHEL clone from CentOS stream is absolutely using "Red Hat code". Also, isn't CentOS stream already ABI compatible? Just occasionally ahead of RHEL? I really don't understand the outrage from RH cracking down on clones. With entitled CentOS users going "I don't want stream, despite it being a rock solid gratis platform; I want the 10 year support battle tested code, but without giving you any money". I do un…

"I want the 10 year support battle tested code, but without giving you any money"

The idea of Free Software is that users have a right to the sources and have the right to distribute the software (and the source code). Red Hat is using and redistributing a lot of Free Software. So to try to stop people downstream from them to keep distributing the work of Red Hat that depends on Free Software is dead against the core of the idea.

Red Hat is profitable enough, and they do have loads of paying customers. Through CentOS (formerly), Alma, Rocky Linux etc. they also have people who use their stuff for free. This only enhances their corporate and paid-for offerings. What they are trying to do now will only hurt them, and it really isn't right.

Re: AlmaLinux stays Red Hat Enterprise Linux compatible without Red Hat code

#14

Post by LightFog »

LeFantome wrote: post #11
LightFog wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“In my eyes this move is perfectly within the spirit of the GPL” - The original author of the GPL disagrees with you - going from his recent responses.

I cannot speak for the “spirit” of the GPL but I can certainly read the text. If the FSF wants to stop somebody from doing what Red Hat is doing ( which would long term be bad for Free Software in my view ), they are going to have to revise the license. I guess the GPL4 will just be the next GPL license that the Linux kernel does not adopt as the differences between Free Software and Open Source start to diverge furt…

My reading of it was more ‘I think they shouldn’t do that’ rather than ‘we are going to try to stop them doing that’. A morality vs legality kind of thing.

Re: AlmaLinux stays Red Hat Enterprise Linux compatible without Red Hat code

#15

Post by LeFantome »

LightFog wrote: post #9
mbakke wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we, as free software consumers, have become spoiled by the sheer amount of quality software and distros available for no charge, with all the freedoms, over the past couple decades. In my eyes this move is perfectly within the spirit of the GPL, which explicitly allows charging for the program. Crucially it makes no promise about future updates. Red Hat can terminate a subscription for a variety of reasons, n…

“In my eyes this move is perfectly within the spirit of the GPL” - The original author of the GPL disagrees with you - going from his recent responses.

Do you agree with these two statements:

- if Red Hat distributes software to you, they also provide access to the specific code and build instructions to build exactly what they distributed to you yourself

- Red Hat will not, no matter what you do, pursue you for copyright violation for distributing GPL licensed code that you get from them. This is true even if it is one of the many GPL packages that they have substantially written themselves using paid software developers.

Because the above sounds a lot like what the GPL was designed to ensure.

In fact, Red Hat does the above even when the license does not require it ( eg. the large amount of MIT stuff they use in RHEL ).

What angers people is that the following is also true:

Red Hat does not provide you code to their product if they have not distributed their product to you. They provide it only to their subscribers. No license, including the GPL, requires them to do this.

If you break the terms of your subscriber agreement with Red Hat, they will terminate your subscription. One of the consequences of this is that they will not distribute FUTURE software releases to you. As per the GPL, they only provide code to people they distribute software to.

The fury around Red Hat is not that they are actually breaking any of the terns of the GPL ( because they do not ). It is because they will not promise to provide you free copies forever to FUTURE copies of THEIR work after you breach a contract with them.

I am not sure what the “spirit of the GPL” is. Is it that? Because that is nothing like the “values” and “community” that I hear people pretending to care about.

Re: AlmaLinux stays Red Hat Enterprise Linux compatible without Red Hat code

#16

Post by LeFantome »

LightFog wrote: post #14
LeFantome wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot speak for the “spirit” of the GPL but I can certainly read the text. If the FSF wants to stop somebody from doing what Red Hat is doing ( which would long term be bad for Free Software in my view ), they are going to have to revise the license. I guess the GPL4 will just be the next GPL license that the Linux kernel does not adopt as the differences between Free Software and Open Source start to diverge furt…

My reading of it was more ‘I think they shouldn’t do that’ rather than ‘we are going to try to stop them doing that’. A morality vs legality kind of thing.

I respect that. I just happen to think Red Hat is in the right morally as well. The right to commercially compete with a company by shamelessly ripping off their product and contributing nothing in return is not something I see as deeply moral. Trying to make that harder feels, to me, like a perfectly ethical thing for Red Hat to do.

And as I said elsewhere, “the code” is not the value that the RHEL clones are trying to rip off and commercialize.

Re: AlmaLinux stays Red Hat Enterprise Linux compatible without Red Hat code

#17

Post by LightFog »

LeFantome wrote: post #15
LightFog wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“In my eyes this move is perfectly within the spirit of the GPL” - The original author of the GPL disagrees with you - going from his recent responses.

Do you agree with these two statements: - if Red Hat distributes software to you, they also provide access to the specific code and build instructions to build exactly what they distributed to you yourself - Red Hat will not, no matter what you do, pursue you for copyright violation for distributing GPL licensed code that you get from them. This is true even if it is one of the many GPL packages that they have substa…

Hey don’t shoot the messenger- if you want to say that the person who wrote the GPL’s opinion on its ‘spirit’ is wrong then go ahead https://fossforce.com/2023/10/richard-stallman-talks-red-hat...

Re: AlmaLinux stays Red Hat Enterprise Linux compatible without Red Hat code

#18

Post by ffgjgf1 »

LightFog wrote: post #17
LeFantome wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you agree with these two statements: - if Red Hat distributes software to you, they also provide access to the specific code and build instructions to build exactly what they distributed to you yourself - Red Hat will not, no matter what you do, pursue you for copyright violation for distributing GPL licensed code that you get from them. This is true even if it is one of the many GPL packages that they have substa…

Hey don’t shoot the messenger- if you want to say that the person who wrote the GPL’s opinion on its ‘spirit’ is wrong then go ahead https://fossforce.com/2023/10/richard-stallman-talks-red-hat...

Which wouldn’t be a particularly unreasonable position to take?

e.g. if we think about the US constitution and other similar documents

Re: AlmaLinux stays Red Hat Enterprise Linux compatible without Red Hat code

#19

Post by LightFog »

ffgjgf1 wrote: post #18
LightFog wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey don’t shoot the messenger- if you want to say that the person who wrote the GPL’s opinion on its ‘spirit’ is wrong then go ahead https://fossforce.com/2023/10/richard-stallman-talks-red-hat...

Which wouldn’t be a particularly unreasonable position to take? e.g. if we think about the US constitution and other similar documents

Whatever about other aspects of RMS he has been pretty consistent on his opinion on the spirit of the GPL and its relationship with free software since its inception. It has been a common tactic over time to question the spirit of the GPL to fit some other agenda. If others want to claim free software means something else then fine - but the original intentions of the GPL are in black and white.

Re: AlmaLinux stays Red Hat Enterprise Linux compatible without Red Hat code

#20

Post by rossy »

LeFantome wrote: post #15
LightFog wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“In my eyes this move is perfectly within the spirit of the GPL” - The original author of the GPL disagrees with you - going from his recent responses.

Do you agree with these two statements: - if Red Hat distributes software to you, they also provide access to the specific code and build instructions to build exactly what they distributed to you yourself - Red Hat will not, no matter what you do, pursue you for copyright violation for distributing GPL licensed code that you get from them. This is true even if it is one of the many GPL packages that they have substa…

Something you omitted is that one of the ways you can break the terms of your subscriber agreement with Red Hat is to exercise one of the rights guaranteed to you by the GPL, which is the right to take the "specific code and build instructions to build exactly what they distributed to you" and give them to someone else.

Or to put another way, Red Hat dissuade their subscribers from exercising their rights under the GPL with the threat of punishment - the termination of your subscription. The GPL is designed to grant you a right and the Red Hat subscriber agreement is designed to prevent it from being exercised. It really couldn't be clearer that this is against the spirit of the GPL. I don't see any other way to interpret what Red Hat is doing.

Post reply on HN