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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    151 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]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -111 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]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11
        edit-2
        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]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -61 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]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            91 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.