Whole situation is ridiculous. People can’t expect enterprise features and support infrastructure for free. But enterprises need to offer more price tiers.
I always thought the Red Hat business model was based around service and support with the OS being a secondary product which is why the free forks existed. When did the OS become the product?
When other companies made a business out of building a clone distro from the source RPMs with trademarks removed.and selling support contracts for it. Oracle being the absolute worst about it. Fuck Oracle.
The ability to do that is literally one of the core purposes of the license.
You don’t and can’t own derivative works of GPL projects. Oracle has the exact same right to resell an exact copy as red hat does of the original project.
I agree. That’s why I said I don’t support RedHat’s choice to close off access to their source to non-customers. RedHat is still complying with their end of the license though, by keeping source access open to the recipients of their binary distribution. This is how Rocky is aiming to maintain 1:1 binary. RedHat is still publishing their Universal Base Image Docker image, so they need to keep source for that open, and Rocky will be using that method to get sources.
My stance is that we as users should be moving on from RedHat and RedHat derivatives, or just pay for RedHat if that’s what we want. Continuing to use derivatives will just convince RedHat we’ll all pay up if they can just get rid of those other options.
Having a prerequisite contract that allows them to punish customers who exercise their rights to the software is not complying with the license. Selling the code is allowed (though if it were written in the modern era where distribution costs are negligible I’m not sure it would be. Predicating distribution on other contracts that limit your rights is not.
You don’t have a right to their sources until they distribute to you. And they have the right to choose to whom they do business (as long as they’re not violatong discrimination laws). If they’ve distributed their product to you they have to give you the source, and they will. And if you distribute that source, they won’t distribute the next release to you, so you won’t have license to those subsequent sources. Compliant with the letter, not the spirit. It’s shitty. And I think we should accordingly not do business with RedHat. That’s what Alma is chosing here, by pivoting to no longer being 1:1 source rebuild distribution. Rocky is trying to hold onto the model that RedHat is trying to kill, by finding ways to still be a non-paying recipient of an RH distribution, requiring they be given access to source. I think we can expect RedHat to try and find a way to cut that off. Then Rocky will either pivot or die. But I wouldn’t want to wait and see and then be screwed. I would want to break all dependence on an entity intent on breaking me. And I’d be wary of recommending Rocky as a migration from CentOS because of RedHat’s actions.
It’s not compliant with the letter. The GPL doesn’t allow you to place other limitations on someone to receive the source. “You have the rights the GPL grants you, but we can punish you for exercising it” is a blatant and egregious breach of the GPL.
They’re not betting that there’s a 1 in a billion chance that they’re right. They know with absolute certainty that they aren’t even in the neighborhood of complying with the license. They’re betting that no one is willing to spend the massive amount of money it would take to punish them for their stolen code.
Just to reiterate, I don’t think RH is in the right here.
They’re “punishing” you by not taking any more of your money for future versions. Maybe we’ll see a court case out of it to settle the question but I doubt it. But consider you are a customer, and you have to ship RH binaries with your application. In order to comply with the license you must also make the source available. RedHat can’t stop you from doing so, they just won’t give you access to any more updates (and stop taking your money). So now you can’t ship security updates to your customer. So now you have a legal liability by being a RedHat customer. Either you fail to comply with GPL yourself for the sake of updates, or you expose your customer to known security risks because you compiled with the GPL. So … why do business with RedHat anymore? Explain this problem to your customers why you can’t certify on RedHat anymore.
Maybe you should read the rest of my comments in this post.
You mean enterprise features mostly developed by the community under the GPL?
Enterprise features like the update management server to keep a fleet of thousands of machines patched with only security updates. Infrastructure like geo-located mirrors of the update repositories (not volunteer mirrors like universities around the world mirroring kernel.org and centos.org and eclipse.org etc). Support service like on-call staff to pick up the phone whenever you call. Those things cost money to provide. If you know of a distribution which provides all that for free, please let me know. If you need that level of support, pay for it instead of trying to find a freebie around it.
Why shouldn’t they be free?
I assume you like to be paid for your work. You might be surprised to learn that revenues from that commercial support pay for the free stuff.
Red Hat is not owed our money just because they’re a business, they however do owe the community strict adherence to the GPL and if they’re not downright violating it here, they are most certainly trying to do an end-run around it.
I agree with you, and everyone else who thinks I need to be told this. Which is why I’ve been advocating in this thread for users to drop RedHat like I did 20ish years ago when they first replaced their free desktop with RedHat Enterprise. And further to move away from source-rebuild distributions because RedHat has clearly stated that they see these users as lost revenue and are taking these actions as a way to “claim” those customers by removing the options. And I certainly wouldn’t pay RedHat after shitting on at least the spirit of the GPL (and I’ll be happy if someone sues them successfully to set a precedent about the letter of the GPL).
It seems that you, and many other corpo-apologists, have been brainwashed into a commercial software mode of thinking where you get the basic software for free, and then pay for extra features. Your “price tiers” remark certainly indicates that you don’t really understand what open source software is about.
I’m so apologetic to these corporations that I’m literally commenting in here to stop buying from them! Such an apologist! When RedHat killed CentOS, I recommended at my office that we switch all CentOS usage to Ubuntu. When they announced this last move of closing the RHEL source to non-customers and the user agreements that they’ll terminate your contract if you distribute the sources, I recommended we don’t even consider a source rebuild distribution either, because I don’t want us to be caught with having to transition to another distribution if RedHat finds a way to kill off the source for UBI to non-customers (how Rocky is planning to stay compatible as a source-rebuild distribution). And it seems Canonical is killing their free distribution too, for organizations of more than 5, so I have to reconsider Ubuntu now (which sucks because WSL was really helping my case to use Ubuntu) Maybe now that Alma is moving away from the RHEL source rebuild model I can recommend Alma, maybe can get a WSL package of Alma. If the other distributions stop caring about RHEL compatibility, then RHEL will cease to be the de facto standard. And we can all rejoice. Seriously why would anyone want to sell a product they built on RHEL now. If they have to redistribute a library they got from RHEL, then they are faced with either being in violation of GPL or losing access to security updates from RHEL (meaning they’ll be exposing their own customers to security risks). It’s a legal lose-lose to be a RHEL customer now.
As for support infrastructure: nobody is expecting Red Hat to give tech support to AlmaLinux and RockyLinux users.
Fucking duh. I never implied that. I said if you’re trying to make use of enterprise features that cost money to provide, you should pay for them. I personally get by just fine with support from GitHub issues/discussions, Gitter/Slack channels, IRC, and Usenet.
Whole situation is ridiculous. People can’t expect enterprise features and support infrastructure for free. But enterprises need to offer more price tiers.
I always thought the Red Hat business model was based around service and support with the OS being a secondary product which is why the free forks existed. When did the OS become the product?
When other companies made a business out of building a clone distro from the source RPMs with trademarks removed.and selling support contracts for it. Oracle being the absolute worst about it. Fuck Oracle.
The ability to do that is literally one of the core purposes of the license.
You don’t and can’t own derivative works of GPL projects. Oracle has the exact same right to resell an exact copy as red hat does of the original project.
I agree. That’s why I said I don’t support RedHat’s choice to close off access to their source to non-customers. RedHat is still complying with their end of the license though, by keeping source access open to the recipients of their binary distribution. This is how Rocky is aiming to maintain 1:1 binary. RedHat is still publishing their Universal Base Image Docker image, so they need to keep source for that open, and Rocky will be using that method to get sources.
My stance is that we as users should be moving on from RedHat and RedHat derivatives, or just pay for RedHat if that’s what we want. Continuing to use derivatives will just convince RedHat we’ll all pay up if they can just get rid of those other options.
Having a prerequisite contract that allows them to punish customers who exercise their rights to the software is not complying with the license. Selling the code is allowed (though if it were written in the modern era where distribution costs are negligible I’m not sure it would be. Predicating distribution on other contracts that limit your rights is not.
You don’t have a right to their sources until they distribute to you. And they have the right to choose to whom they do business (as long as they’re not violatong discrimination laws). If they’ve distributed their product to you they have to give you the source, and they will. And if you distribute that source, they won’t distribute the next release to you, so you won’t have license to those subsequent sources. Compliant with the letter, not the spirit. It’s shitty. And I think we should accordingly not do business with RedHat. That’s what Alma is chosing here, by pivoting to no longer being 1:1 source rebuild distribution. Rocky is trying to hold onto the model that RedHat is trying to kill, by finding ways to still be a non-paying recipient of an RH distribution, requiring they be given access to source. I think we can expect RedHat to try and find a way to cut that off. Then Rocky will either pivot or die. But I wouldn’t want to wait and see and then be screwed. I would want to break all dependence on an entity intent on breaking me. And I’d be wary of recommending Rocky as a migration from CentOS because of RedHat’s actions.
It’s not compliant with the letter. The GPL doesn’t allow you to place other limitations on someone to receive the source. “You have the rights the GPL grants you, but we can punish you for exercising it” is a blatant and egregious breach of the GPL.
They’re not betting that there’s a 1 in a billion chance that they’re right. They know with absolute certainty that they aren’t even in the neighborhood of complying with the license. They’re betting that no one is willing to spend the massive amount of money it would take to punish them for their stolen code.
Just to reiterate, I don’t think RH is in the right here.
They’re “punishing” you by not taking any more of your money for future versions. Maybe we’ll see a court case out of it to settle the question but I doubt it. But consider you are a customer, and you have to ship RH binaries with your application. In order to comply with the license you must also make the source available. RedHat can’t stop you from doing so, they just won’t give you access to any more updates (and stop taking your money). So now you can’t ship security updates to your customer. So now you have a legal liability by being a RedHat customer. Either you fail to comply with GPL yourself for the sake of updates, or you expose your customer to known security risks because you compiled with the GPL. So … why do business with RedHat anymore? Explain this problem to your customers why you can’t certify on RedHat anymore.
deleted by creator
Maybe you should read the rest of my comments in this post.
Enterprise features like the update management server to keep a fleet of thousands of machines patched with only security updates. Infrastructure like geo-located mirrors of the update repositories (not volunteer mirrors like universities around the world mirroring kernel.org and centos.org and eclipse.org etc). Support service like on-call staff to pick up the phone whenever you call. Those things cost money to provide. If you know of a distribution which provides all that for free, please let me know. If you need that level of support, pay for it instead of trying to find a freebie around it.
I assume you like to be paid for your work. You might be surprised to learn that revenues from that commercial support pay for the free stuff.
I agree with you, and everyone else who thinks I need to be told this. Which is why I’ve been advocating in this thread for users to drop RedHat like I did 20ish years ago when they first replaced their free desktop with RedHat Enterprise. And further to move away from source-rebuild distributions because RedHat has clearly stated that they see these users as lost revenue and are taking these actions as a way to “claim” those customers by removing the options. And I certainly wouldn’t pay RedHat after shitting on at least the spirit of the GPL (and I’ll be happy if someone sues them successfully to set a precedent about the letter of the GPL).
I’m so apologetic to these corporations that I’m literally commenting in here to stop buying from them! Such an apologist! When RedHat killed CentOS, I recommended at my office that we switch all CentOS usage to Ubuntu. When they announced this last move of closing the RHEL source to non-customers and the user agreements that they’ll terminate your contract if you distribute the sources, I recommended we don’t even consider a source rebuild distribution either, because I don’t want us to be caught with having to transition to another distribution if RedHat finds a way to kill off the source for UBI to non-customers (how Rocky is planning to stay compatible as a source-rebuild distribution). And it seems Canonical is killing their free distribution too, for organizations of more than 5, so I have to reconsider Ubuntu now (which sucks because WSL was really helping my case to use Ubuntu) Maybe now that Alma is moving away from the RHEL source rebuild model I can recommend Alma, maybe can get a WSL package of Alma. If the other distributions stop caring about RHEL compatibility, then RHEL will cease to be the de facto standard. And we can all rejoice. Seriously why would anyone want to sell a product they built on RHEL now. If they have to redistribute a library they got from RHEL, then they are faced with either being in violation of GPL or losing access to security updates from RHEL (meaning they’ll be exposing their own customers to security risks). It’s a legal lose-lose to be a RHEL customer now.
Fucking duh. I never implied that. I said if you’re trying to make use of enterprise features that cost money to provide, you should pay for them. I personally get by just fine with support from GitHub issues/discussions, Gitter/Slack channels, IRC, and Usenet.
deleted by creator