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

Keeping Open Source Open

rockylinux.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 253 posts

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#231

Post by bonzini »

toyg wrote: post #224
bonzini wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, call me back when it does.

Obviously by then it will be too late to do anything about it. It's like when they bought CentOS - some people started making plans, fearing they would discontinue it. Others went "call me back when it happens". Then it happened.

It's been 9 years. A few tempests in a teapot later you still have RHEL rebuilds (according to TFA nothing is changing in that respect), they are more timely than CentOS ever was before the acquisition, and you also got Fedora ELN CentOS Stream as a pathway towards contributing to RHEL. So yeah, I rest my case: call me back when it happens.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#233

Post by bubblethink »

mackca wrote: post #229
geerlingguy wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I mean. Not putting up a EULA dam. They don't have to build CentOS or assist anyone, but they can't block the code from flowing downhill.

According to Red Hat the source of RHEL is publicly available on CentOS Stream Gitlab, without a EULA.

It's the upstream source, not the source used to build RHEL. RHEL is downstream of CentOS stream. Much like linux kernel's source is available, it does not help you much.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#234

Post by bubblethink »

mackca wrote: post #227
Brian_K_White wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Centos Steam is merely upstream of RHEL. GPL stipulates that when you give someone else a binary, you also give them the source to that binary, not something similar.

Isn't that the whole issue here? Customers and people with Developer licenses can get the exact RHEL binaries "behind the paywall". And even then if something is upstream does that not mean that the same code flows down stream?

No. CentOS stream is irrelevant here. RHEL customers cannot meaningfully distribute the sources of RHEL. This has been the issue since the beginning, it's just that RH has tightened the knobs progressively over the years.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#235

Post by bubblethink »

mackca wrote: post #49
femiagbabiaka wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they don’t care, then why make it more difficult?

Because it is extra effort on Red Hat's part that corporate backed projects can compensate for if they choose to ?

There is no extra effort here. The binary comes from the source. You don't have immaculate conception for RHEL. RHEL uses the source, and use to provide a link to the said source. Now they don't. And nobody is even asking RH to post sources publicly. People will happily take that burden off of them. They don't have to post the source, they can let their customers do so, but they forbid their customers. So this argument fails.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#236

Post by dizhn »

gbraad wrote: post #156
lars_francke wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UBI images only contain a small subset of all RHEL packages. The blog post is vague on this topic and I'm not sure if you can really get all sources that way. I have my doubts but I've never tried: https://access.redhat.com/articles/4238681

They are images tailored towards runtime use. They do not come with server components. For example, you can't get/download udhcpd in a UBI image.

This is a very weird situaiton. As far as I know the whole Red Hat distribution is still open source. Now they put themselves in a position to refrain from publishing their open source changes. If those changes do not flow up or down stream, how are they going to keep calling themselves open source? (They don't call themsegpes free software as far as I can tell)

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#237

Post by angus-prune »

WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #210
throw_a_grenade wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's the other way around: GPL requires that all pieces required to compile the binary (the exact binary that triggers requirement for distributing source) needs to come along. IIUC if they distribute source as SRPMs, the .spec needs to be included and without limitations (legal or technical) that would prevent user from rebuilding the original software.

Well, nothing prevents you from rebuilding the upstream tarball, or tarball with RH's patches applied even, using upstream's instructions. Doesn't have to be the identical RPM package, does it? I don't really know how this might or might not work. My gut says that since the .spec is meaningless without the sources, it's a Modification of the work and thus the spec, patches, and the resulting SRPM is definitely a Deri…

Perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't it have to be the source for an identical rpm package.

If the rpm package is the binary they're distributing, than that's also the source they have to distribute.

The gpl isn't literally about the community, upstream, downstream. The gpl is simply - if you give me a binary, you have to also give me (or ensure I have access to) the source for that binary. The source to a similar binary doesn't cut it.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#238

Post by mackca »

bubblethink wrote: post #235
mackca wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is extra effort on Red Hat's part that corporate backed projects can compensate for if they choose to ?

There is no extra effort here. The binary comes from the source. You don't have immaculate conception for RHEL. RHEL uses the source, and use to provide a link to the said source. Now they don't. And nobody is even asking RH to post sources publicly. People will happily take that burden off of them. They don't have to post the source, they can let their customers do so, but they forbid their customers. So this argume…

RHEL source according to Red Hat is CentOS Stream. CentOS Stream is publicly available. Red Hat cannot deprive you of your right to sources and to redistribute them under the GPL. But Red Hat can also determine who they want to do business with.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#239

Post by mackca »

bubblethink wrote: post #234
mackca wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the whole issue here? Customers and people with Developer licenses can get the exact RHEL binaries "behind the paywall". And even then if something is upstream does that not mean that the same code flows down stream?

No. CentOS stream is irrelevant here. RHEL customers cannot meaningfully distribute the sources of RHEL. This has been the issue since the beginning, it's just that RH has tightened the knobs progressively over the years.

RHEL source according to Red Hat is CentOS Stream. If the source of RHEL is CentOS Stream then how is it irrelevant? Red Hat cannot deprive you of your right to sources and to redistribute them under the GPL. But Red Hat can also determine who they want to do business with.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#240

Post by worthless-trash »

bubblethink wrote: post #233
mackca wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Red Hat the source of RHEL is publicly available on CentOS Stream Gitlab, without a EULA.

It's the upstream source, not the source used to build RHEL. RHEL is downstream of CentOS stream. Much like linux kernel's source is available, it does not help you much.

However, it is "exactly" that code, isnt it.. thats been my understanding.
Post reply on HN