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

41–50 of 253 posts

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#41

Post by liamnal »

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 think you misread the post. He's clearly saying that he doesn't understand how the conclusion was drawn that there was anything shady going on. Willing to bet that the RESF builds rocky linux and CIQ does all the "shady" business dealings, which is out of their control.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#42

Post by Brian_K_White »

bonzini wrote: post #13
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…

My guess is that they will be content with: 1) having something to show their customers who has the actual expertise 2) making it clear that the Red Hat of today is significantly more open than the Red Hat of 2014 when neither CentOS Stream nor UBI existed and CentOS releases were months late despite the SRPMs being on ftp.redhat.com 3) making it obvious that they are respecting the GPL, and that no one gives a flyin…

What's the term for those paid actors placed in audiences to cheer for patently terrible things? Found one.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#43

Post by nequo »

soneil wrote: post #7
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…

> And IMO, was it worth it? I suspect they're playing with unintended consequences now. One of the nice "features" of buying CentOS, is that it meant CentOS was never going to compete - there was a clear line between community and professional, and CentOS were never going to sell you professional services. Pushing everyone to non-RH builds has removed that line, and there's a strong chance that non-RH builds selling…

> and there's a strong chance that non-RH builds selling professional services, is going to have a higher opportunity-cost than publishing CentOS did.

Could you clarify what you mean by opportunity cost here? Who faces this cost and why?

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#44

Post by tgmux »

totallywrong wrote: post #37
tgmux wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Open source projects with sponsors and partners are pretty commonplace. Naturally, projects depend on having some support from others. You can frame that as a "commercial interest" but I maintain that is an inaccurate description of our sponsor and partner relationships.

Rocky is absolutely a separate entity, both legally and in practice. In fact, the project and foundation board bylaws limit undue influence in a number of ways including maximum number of board seats per employer. We try to show our values both in our words and actions.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#45

Post by Brian_K_White »

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.

They demand that Redhat pay for what they take in the only coin that the original producer ever asked for.

Redhat are the parasites, not Centos.

If Redhat don't agree to the deal that the gpl makes, they are free not to use any gpl code.

Trying to paywall gpl software is simply theft, and it's an incredible expression of the art, when something is free, and yet you still manage to steal it.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#46

Post by mackca »

geerlingguy wrote: post #23
mackca wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a thought, maybe Red Hat was being honest when they said that they were not under an obligation to make it easy for rebuilders, and that's it? Maybe they weren't out to immediately kill the clones because they know that they can't? We have actually heard very little communication from Red Hat most of it has been speculation from people on what they might or could do, but as you point out there are ways around…

Mike McGrath has been very explicit about this in his comments on the Ask Noah Show podcast episode[1] and a number of responses in the r/Linux subreddit. [1] https://podcast.asknoahshow.com/343 about 20 min in

All I heard in that segment was Red Hat stopped taking extra steps to debrand and push packages from RHEL, and now clones will have to build their software from CentOS Stream. I did not hear anything about additional actions that Red Hat will take or plans to take. Did I miss something?

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#47

Post by Brian_K_White »

mackca wrote: post #14
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…

Here's a thought, maybe Red Hat was being honest when they said that they were not under an obligation to make it easy for rebuilders, and that's it? Maybe they weren't out to immediately kill the clones because they know that they can't? We have actually heard very little communication from Red Hat most of it has been speculation from people on what they might or could do, but as you point out there are ways around…

They are actually under exactly that obligation. It's very explicit in the gpl not only what the terms are, but what their intent is, precisely so that no one can ever claim any other possible interpretation.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#48

Post by Brian_K_White »

redundantly wrote: post #6
EvanAnderson wrote: post #3

Are the RHEL SRPMS watermarked for individual Customers in any way? It seems like Redhat has no mechanism to stop a torrent of the SRPMS showing-up. Attribution would be exceedingly difficult. Since distribution of FLOSS-licensed source isn’t copyright infringement it’s not like they could DMCA it away. Arguably the specfiles are able to be copyrighted. I wonder what the license is like for those.

> Are the RHEL SRPMS watermarked for individual Customers in any way? Highly unlikely. File hashing can be used to easily check for this.

Not no mention, source is text. Plain diff shows any differences. There is a lot of text, and so a lot of haystack to make small changes, but no way to hide them at all, and no way to break the product if the diffs are undiffed or further diffed to obscure the origin.

RH can't actually do what their trying to do, but that's less important than the fact that they want to. I can't see voluntarily having anything to do with them now. I see no value in any product or service they might offer that is worth knowingly working with someone who has exposed such a lack of integrity.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#49

Post by mackca »

femiagbabiaka wrote: post #17
mackca wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a thought, maybe Red Hat was being honest when they said that they were not under an obligation to make it easy for rebuilders, and that's it? Maybe they weren't out to immediately kill the clones because they know that they can't? We have actually heard very little communication from Red Hat most of it has been speculation from people on what they might or could do, but as you point out there are ways around…

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 ?

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#50

Post by paulryanrogers »

Arnavion wrote: post #27
EvanAnderson wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To be clear, it's not yet known for certain if the chilling effect of a terminated contract violates the "no further restrictions" clause of the GPL or not. Evidently IBM's lawyers think it doesn't. But it would be good to test it in court first.

GRSecurity started down this road. IBM though has deeper pockets
Post reply on HN