Keeping Open Source Open • Hacker News Board

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#71

Post by skipkey » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 4:08 AM UTC

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…

Honestly the UBI images seem like the best option. They publish those, they have to publish the source for them.

Sure, they can make it more difficult by making them static, but it seems doable.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#72

Post by pritambarhate » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 4:35 AM UTC

gbraad wrote: post #65

coldtea wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when they are selling support for a thing they don't make, but demand it's readily provided for free and no hassle So just like RedHat and IBM?

Just like Canonical asks for Ubuntu, and SUSE for SLE/Leap they make. Rocky/CIQ are not 'making' RHEL, ...

There was time today's big distros were small and they mostly took from community, packaged it and sold support for it. Rocky is small now so needs to take more from community. If it becomes big later it can also contribute back.

That's one of the benefits of open source. It helps small guys to get started and make it big. Once they become big, they can contribute back.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#73

Post by davisr » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 4:38 AM UTC

Brian_K_White wrote: post #45

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.

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.

> Trying to paywall gpl software is simply theft

No, it's not, and I've seen your comments elsewhere. I don't think you even know what the "free" in "free software" means.

You are COMPLETELY allowed to SELL free software. "Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can." See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

Red Hat is still distributing full corresponding source code to anyone they distribute a binary to. That is what the GPL class of licenses require, and that is what they are doing.

You are free to get the software elsewhere. You don't have to get it from Red Hat. And if Red Hat wants to charge you for it, you can take it or leave it.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#74

Post by coldtea » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 4:40 AM UTC

gbraad wrote: post #65

coldtea wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when they are selling support for a thing they don't make, but demand it's readily provided for free and no hassle So just like RedHat and IBM?

Just like Canonical asks for Ubuntu, and SUSE for SLE/Leap they make. Rocky/CIQ are not 'making' RHEL, ...

IBM/RHEL doesn't make most of RHEL either. It's repackaged FOSS projects. Some they contribute to themselves as well, but most not.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#75

Post by totallywrong » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 4:50 AM UTC

geerlingguy wrote: post #24

rodgerd wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain what you think Rocky are giving back to the community?

CentOS? A usable downstream distribution? Further: https://forums.rockylinux.org/t/has-red-hat-just-killed-rock...

Really? Some images, bug reports, and internal build tools. What new software or features have Rocky contributed to the community they can't keep talking about? I side with RH here because I personally, every day, use a lot of software they've made available. That takes time, effort, and money. Heck, you personally benefit immensely from an acquisition they subsequently open sourced. When Rocky has something that's anywhere near this [0] let me know.

[0] https://www.redhat.com/en/about/open-source-program-office/c...

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#76

Post by lars_francke » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:01 AM UTC

skipkey wrote: post #71

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…

Honestly the UBI images seem like the best option. They publish those, they have to publish the source for them. Sure, they can make it more difficult by making them static, but it seems doable.

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

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#77

Post by totallywrong » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:03 AM UTC

pritambarhate wrote: post #72

gbraad wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like Canonical asks for Ubuntu, and SUSE for SLE/Leap they make. Rocky/CIQ are not 'making' RHEL, ...

There was time today's big distros were small and they mostly took from community, packaged it and sold support for it. Rocky is small now so needs to take more from community. If it becomes big later it can also contribute back. That's one of the benefits of open source. It helps small guys to get started and make it big. Once they become big, they can contribute back.

But that's the thing, Rocky simply can't grow in that way, because they're not trying to do their own thing, they just aim for bug-for-bug compatibility. They are not pushing out new code and helping advance the ecosystem.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#78

Post by lxe » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:13 AM UTC

What is RHEL compatibility so important and why is it always such a hot topic?

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#79

Post by geerlingguy » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:36 AM UTC

musicale wrote: post #63

emmelaich wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if Red Hat will provides sources for the rpms in the containers (or actually installed) and nothing else.

Breaking rpm in cloud and container instances seems like a losing strategy.

Yeah, instead of just upsetting the downstream 'rebuilders', you start upsetting enterprise customers too.

Re: Keeping Open Source Open

#80

Post by gbraad » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:42 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #74

gbraad wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like Canonical asks for Ubuntu, and SUSE for SLE/Leap they make. Rocky/CIQ are not 'making' RHEL, ...

IBM/RHEL doesn't make most of RHEL either. It's repackaged FOSS projects. Some they contribute to themselves as well, but most not.

You paint a very weird picture of the engineers they pay to work on Gnome, the kernel, or the hundreds of other libraries used.

What more should they do?

Also note, Red Hat pays engineers for the extended support, the compliance https://access.redhat.com/articles/2918071, etc that customers expect from RH. Engineers contribute both upstream (first) and backport those changes to older releases.