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

31–40 of 253 posts

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#31

Post by [deleted] »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #22
axus wrote: post #5

I was poking around the Rocky Linux website, and wondering where to download the latest source code for Rocky 9.2? Let's say IBM decides not to burn up the ecosystem, will Oracle / Alma start using the source that Rocky exfiltrates? Related question, as a Red Hat subscriber can I still distribute Red Hat ISO and source code? It seems like I should be able to distribute ISO images and source after obtaining them.. but…

Red Hat can't stop you from exercising your rights under the GPL to redistribute the code. You also can't compel them to do business with you. They've structured their support agreements such that if you do exercise your rights under the GPL they will stop supporting you (and decline to offer you future subscriptions). The value proposition for RHEL is ostensibly support (and a "throat to choke", for whatever that's…

[deleted]

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#32

Post by ss48 »

geerlingguy wrote: post #2

It sounds like they have two different mechanisms they can pull from currently, which will get them to parity with RHEL releases. Red Hat would need to shift a few knobs and probably offend quite a few people running UBI images at least (including a zillion folks in the OpenShift community who rely on them) to cut off this current approach to getting the sources. I wonder if Red Hat is willing to play this game of wh…

Could they not just leave these alternate channels a few weeks or months behind the current release that only the subscribers have access to? That would keep them as the most current, up-to-date source over Rocky Linux.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#33

Post by totallywrong »

geerlingguy wrote: post #28
totallywrong wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's mostly from people with a commercial interest. I can't take Rocky seriously when they are selling support for a thing they don't make, but demand it's readily provided for free and no hassle.

According to Rocky Linux devs they aren't: https://forums.rockylinux.org/t/vague-accusations-about-shad...

That's one guy saying he doesn't know what's up. I have no doubt he doesn't get paid. What counts though, is this:

https://rockylinux.org/support

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#34

Post by austhrow743 »

geerlingguy wrote: post #28
totallywrong wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's mostly from people with a commercial interest. I can't take Rocky seriously when they are selling support for a thing they don't make, but demand it's readily provided for free and no hassle.

According to Rocky Linux devs they aren't: https://forums.rockylinux.org/t/vague-accusations-about-shad...

Does it matter if Rocky and CIQ are separate organisations? Would your or anyone elses opinion be different if the flow went client -> paid support -> Rocky rather than client -> paid support -> CIQ -> donation -> Rocky?

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#35

Post by [deleted] »

totallywrong wrote: post #26
geerlingguy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's cute how many people think the uproar is about whiny freeloaders or clickbait influencers.

No it's mostly from people with a commercial interest. I can't take Rocky seriously when they are selling support for a thing they don't make, but demand it's readily provided for free and no hassle.

[deleted]

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#36

Post by tgmux »

totallywrong wrote: post #33
geerlingguy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Rocky Linux devs they aren't: https://forums.rockylinux.org/t/vague-accusations-about-shad...

That's one guy saying he doesn't know what's up. I have no doubt he doesn't get paid. What counts though, is this: https://rockylinux.org/support

I'm one of the board members who replied on the forum thread. Rocky has never sold support or any other product. We make an OS for the community, that's it. The link to the support providers page simply is that, a list of other third party providers who offer paid support services.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#37

Post by totallywrong »

tgmux wrote: post #36
totallywrong wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one guy saying he doesn't know what's up. I have no doubt he doesn't get paid. What counts though, is this: https://rockylinux.org/support

I'm one of the board members who replied on the forum thread. Rocky has never sold support or any other product. We make an OS for the community, that's it. The link to the support providers page simply is that, a list of other third party providers who offer paid support services.

So a "founding partner" is now a third party provider? Frame it as you may, but there is in fact commercial interest here. Even if Rocky were a separate entity, it depends on the sponsors selling support.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#39

Post by dlor »

Shakahs wrote: post #11
fariszr wrote: post #4

> One option is through the usage of UBI container images which are based on RHEL and available from multiple online sources (including Docker Hub). Using the UBI image, it is easily possible to obtain Red Hat sources reliably and unencumbered. We have validated this through OCI (Open Container Initiative) containers and it works exactly as expected. > Another method that we will leverage is pay-per-use public cloud…

The public cloud route is pretty elegant. Red Hat is restricting source code to subscribers only, so Rocky contributors will just subscribe for an hour at a time when they need to download source code. There’s no way for Red Hat to stop this without terminating all public cloud licensing everywhere.

I'm not a lawyer, but that's definitely not their only recourse here.

Lawyers are not going to look at this coordinated attempt to subvert a EULA and say "oh well, nothing we can do here".

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#40

Post by fomine3 »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #38
fomine3 wrote: post #30

Next: Add --accept-redhat-eula flag

I'm not a copyright expert, but I'm pretty sure that'd run afoul of the "you may not impose any further restrictions" clause of GPL. Being able to modify and redistribute the source is the whole point.

I see. So even RH blocked access to their srpm repository by any way, it's not about GPL. Finally RH needs to block providing binary by EULA but it will be annoying for evaluation and container.
Post reply on HN