This is a masterfully Orwellian post. So, Redhat is threatening their customers with withdrawal of support that they depend on quite deeply, if the customers exercise their rights under the GPL. In response, the community got upset. Redhat’s response is:
I was shocked and disappointed about how many people got so much wrong about open source software and the GPL in particular —especially, industry watchers and even veterans who I think should know better. The details — including open source licenses and rights — matter, and these are things Red Hat has helped to not only form but also preserve and evolve.
So, as of 15 years ago, the total value of what Redhat is selling was estimated at around 10 trillion dollars. The fraction of that that was created by Redhat is, fair play, higher than most companies that distribute FOSS software. They are, in terms of code, a significant contributor (especially in the kernel). But what they’re building on in the first place is this multi-trillion dollar thing that they got for free. The only caveat was that they need to maintain the same freedom for others that they made use of.
So, when people ask them to do that, they say:
I feel that much of the anger from our recent decision around the downstream sources comes from either those who do not want to pay for the time, effort and resources going into RHEL or those who want to repackage it for their own profit. This demand for RHEL code is disingenuous.
I see. It’s yours, and we’re not allowed to repackage it for our own “profit.” Because:
Simply repackaging the code that these individuals produce and reselling it as is, with no value added, makes the production of this open source software unsustainable.
Simply repackaging the code that these individuals produce and reselling it as is, with no value added, makes the production of this open source software unsustainable.
It’s especially funny since very few people involved in this equation are trying to “resell” anyone else’s work. There is basically only one big party that’s doing it, as far as I know…
There are subscription costs built into the VMs on public cloud. Azure gets the money for the compute but a percentage goes to the company maintaining the distro. Its quite a large revenue source.
Regardless of that, my question was independent of a support agreement: Do you know of any major Linux distribution besides RHEL that charges a fee and requires an agreement with the manufacturer to use or download their production version?
This is a masterfully Orwellian post. So, Redhat is threatening their customers with withdrawal of support that they depend on quite deeply, if the customers exercise their rights under the GPL. In response, the community got upset. Redhat’s response is:
So, as of 15 years ago, the total value of what Redhat is selling was estimated at around 10 trillion dollars. The fraction of that that was created by Redhat is, fair play, higher than most companies that distribute FOSS software. They are, in terms of code, a significant contributor (especially in the kernel). But what they’re building on in the first place is this multi-trillion dollar thing that they got for free. The only caveat was that they need to maintain the same freedom for others that they made use of.
So, when people ask them to do that, they say:
I see. It’s yours, and we’re not allowed to repackage it for our own “profit.” Because:
Got it.
Orwellian?
Nah, that’s just corporate speak.
Anyway, back to my Debian servers…
Then it isn’t really open source is it…
Ding ding ding
It’s especially funny since very few people involved in this equation are trying to “resell” anyone else’s work. There is basically only one big party that’s doing it, as far as I know…
🍆
What?
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/workloads/redhat/redhat-images
There are subscription costs built into the VMs on public cloud. Azure gets the money for the compute but a percentage goes to the company maintaining the distro. Its quite a large revenue source.
Do you know of any major Linux distribution besides RHEL that charges a subscription fee? I don’t.
Edit: I poked around the site a little more. I had quite a bit of trouble sorting out what the comparison was between costs of different Linux distributions, but (a) it looks to me like the cost of Redhat is exactly the same as the cost of Ubuntu (b) it looks like there may be some sort of bundled corporate support as part of the package, for which I’m sure there’s a cost © their list of which distros to include (Redhat / SUSE / Ubuntu) is quite weird coming from the Linux world. Most providers I’m familiar with default to Debian for servers.
Regardless of that, my question was independent of a support agreement: Do you know of any major Linux distribution besides RHEL that charges a fee and requires an agreement with the manufacturer to use or download their production version?
Yeah it requires a little investigation but here is a breakdown:
Ubuntu (Canonical) Free Pro - pay as you go (gives package patches) Pro + Support - pay as you go (SLA)
RHEL (Red Hat Inc) Premium - pay as you go (patches only)
CentOS (Many image providers) Free
Debian (Debian) Free
SLES (Suse) Premium - Pay as you go (patches only)
Oracle Linux (Oracle) Free Support - pay as you go