Huge Open Source Drama
www.youtube.com
Red Hat just erected a paywall in front of the source code to their Linux distribution.Are they burning bridges to the wider open source ecosystem?Referenced...

An exceptionally well explained rant that I find myself in total agreement with.

  • @[email protected]English
    -1•1 year ago

    What do you think the intent of the GPL is though? Genuinely curious, this isn’t meant as a retort or anything.

    • @[email protected]English
      24•1 year ago

      … the freedom to study, change, and redistribute the software you use.

      They are specifically and explicitly trying to limit your freedom with regards to redistribution by making it a violation of their EULA to do so.

      • @[email protected]English
        -16•1 year ago

        But the code is also available in CentOS Stream, which is basically the “git master” of RHEL, and that you can freely redistribute.

        • @[email protected]English
          15•1 year ago

          The people using RHEL aren’t using CentOS Stream, and they aren’t able to redistribute the actual software they are actively using. I don’t know how to state this any clearer.

          • @[email protected]English
            -11•1 year ago

            Your logic would apply if they were entirely separate pieces of software, but RHEL is just essentially snapshots of CentOS Stream.

            • @[email protected]English
              11•1 year ago

              Those snapshots are not CentOS Stream. You are not running CentOS Stream, in the state in which it is provided, when you run a RHEL release. They arent entirely separate, but that’s exaggerating the claim and not what I’m arguing. The people who are using RHEL as provided are not able to redistribute the thing which they are using.

              • @[email protected]English
                -6•1 year ago

                Whether the GPL says the redistributed code has to be a bug-for-bug compatible copy of RHEL is up for lawyers to decide. In my mind, saying “I am not running Software Foobar, I am running Software Foobar released a few months ago” seems like a silly distinction in this case, especially when talking about the health of FOSS.

                • @[email protected]English
                  9•1 year ago

                  Once again, their adherence to the letter of the GPL is certainly up for debate, I said as much at the start.

                  Their violation of its intent, however, is not. They are putting up roadblocks, however trivial or insignificant you seem to believe they are, to limit your freedom in redistributing they code they are providing. Period. This controversy would not exist if they weren’t.