• Lengsel
      link
      fedilink
      210 months ago

      That’s exactly what’s already happened. Rocky and Alma are already no longer an option for a free version of Red Hat since Red Hat code is not allowed to be shared, it can only be viewed. Read their own words from Alma and Rocky, what they themself said about oing forward.

      Red Hat can also change the license agreement further to include anyone proven to have published source code of Red Hat branded material agrees to pay a fee to Red Hat of no less than $10 million, or whatever price they want to put on it.

      Everyone can scream about Red Hat, all they have to have to do is change some wording in agreement that includes fees(fines) for multi millions of dollars, BOOM! Red Hat becomes a proprietary system built on open source software.

      SUSE says they will fork RHEL, but Alma and Rocky are over in terms of being a clone. People have asked for years why there is no free 1 to 1 clone of SLES and SLED. IBM is free to choose to turn all of RHEL in a proprietary development and lock it down, unless you can get a court order that says Red Hate’s code must be made public, but I don’t dare test IBM lawyers over any code that is not released under AGPLv3, only then I would.

        • Lengsel
          link
          fedilink
          -110 months ago

          The GNU/Linux GPLv2 does not apply to any software developed and owned by Red Hat like all of the Red Hat security programs, that is not covered by the Linux license. If Red Hat never modifies or changes a single line of code in GNU/Linux, they are free to run closed source programs on top of it. They own .rpm file format so they have the legal freedom to make the system and all RH software proprietary.

          That’s how Rocky and Alma are now permanently locked out from accessing the code.

            • Lengsel
              link
              fedilink
              110 months ago

              Until someone gives legal notice to IBM lawyers forcing Red Hat source code to be released pulicly, all of this debating over it means jack nothing.

              If nobody takes IBM to court, the matter is settled and all developers must accept Red Hat’s choices.

              If they dismiss the online talk, ignore all criticisms, and nobody pays for a lawsuit, the case is done and finished.

              I’m not trying skip over your points, as I said from my first first, everybody can talk all they want, who has the power of persuasion or legal force to change IBM’s decision?

              I may be wrong, but I believe only the Linux Foundation is a position to call IBM CTO, President, whoever, and say “We heard about the changes to with holding Red Hat’s source code, you will not be doing that, it shall remain public. If you want to discuss this further, please send your most expensive lawyers to our offices and we will explain in detail why you won’t be doing that.”

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  110 months ago

                  The likely retaliation RH/IBM would take is simply banning the account, not starting a lawsuit immediately. However, rights holders may attempt sue before or after such an event, but likely after.

                  RH thinks they have the right to distribute code in this manner, and they can keep doing so until challenged in court. You can do actions in general without asking the court every time, I think the same applies here as well.

                  I personally think it is a violation in a strict sense, but at the same time I don’t think it really matters too much realistically. Stream is upstream RHEL, and they are very similar, and at some points in time, should be identical. It’s also not clear what you get exactly by suing RH/IBM. The likely case is that they settle or rule to have that section removed from the ToS.