Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
Red Hat is happy to take your code and distribute it, first with minimal changes, and perhaps with more changes over time.
But if you do it, you are a leech.
Love that the Brodie here goes into gatekeeping what is considered a contribution:
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-source-response-gitcentosorg-changes
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
@aruiz what Balmer’s Microsoft couldn’t do, IBM did: found a GPL loophole to enshitify Linux.
Doesn’t matter that they are separate entities, executives get their bonuses set by IBM chain of command.
Their job is to launder their shit strategy to be palatable to customer and employees. As we can clearly see in this illustration, they clearly succeeded with one group.
Alberto Ruiz
As I have been both a Red Hat and a Sun employee during both transitions. I can't state how far from the truth your statement is.
Red Hat is still the same legal entity, with a very similar management chain with the exception of Jim W. not being in the picture and Paul taking a step aside as CEO.
Oracle announced major scrapping on day 0.
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
If you had the misfortune of reading the replies to my post, enjoy an explanation without corporate speak.
While the authors of this post need to walk a fine line to attempt to salvage their efforts, I have no stakes on this, and can tell you in black and white the answer to the last question is: yes, IBM and Red Hat are doing this to eliminate their competitors and extract more money from the market.
Time to pay rent:
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
The greatest trick the devil pulled was convincing the world that IBM was better than Oracle for open source communities.
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
This is Red Hat’s Reddit moment: how dare people other than us benefit from the free labor that we have packaged.
clacke
@aruiz Please enjoy the SFC's analysis of exactly how close Red Hat is skirting the edges of the GPL:
sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/ju…
Alberto Ruiz
@Migueldeicaza I am afraid that you are moving the goalpost here, I am okay to going back to exact binaries, but you accused Red Hat of violating the GPL, how is making modifications (copyleft or otherwise) publicly available a violation of the GPL or the commons at large?
Alberto Ruiz
@Migueldeicaza I wouldn't support what you claim we're doing though, engineering teams are mandated to push every change upstream and each new RHEL change is here sooner or later:
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
@aruiz it doesn’t matter that the changes get there. It matters that this is not identical. I am sure you are not stupid and you know the difference fully - if not, read reddit or the replies.
And it matters that this is a nasty contractual land grab.
Alberto Ruiz
@Migueldeicaza is boycottibm.com taken?
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
@aruiz nice deflection - you are taking this too personally, and you are defending shitheads that will fire you in an instant if they need to make their numbers.
This is both bad short term, and it is legitimizing a nasty attack on free software.
Unless you got your wealth tied to their stock, I don’t see how you would support this.
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
@MWelchUK @aruiz those community distros are precisely the ones impacted.
Dude, just do me a favor and read the replies to the thread and the forums before I have to explain everything again. This drive-by-insight is just a waste of time. Sayonara bro.
Martyn Welch
@Migueldeicaza @aruiz No, unless you pay, you'll never get to run it. If you pay, you get access to identical source.
That's clearly a change from how it's been done in the past, however it's no different from a lot of OEMs from my experience (you don't get access to their Linux until you buy the product for which it's provided).
Unless I've miss-understood or RedHat have changed their operating procedures, then any fixes in RHEL are upstream already.
Martyn Welch
@Migueldeicaza @aruiz The only people that now seem to miss out are those wanting to run an enterprise grade Linux, but without financially helping support the effort of maintaining one.
It's not like RHEL is the only available Linux distribution. There are even "stable" community maintained distros if providing financial support is not your thing.
Given that AFAIK all fixes are already upstream, other than rebuilding and offering a free RHEL clone, what can't now be done?
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
@MWelchUK @aruiz people don’t want the rolling release, the “snapshot in time at whatever time it is”. They want identical configurations, and this the contract is used to withhold.
You will never know unless you pay what exactly is fixed or improved. You have to take your chances.
Martyn Welch
@Migueldeicaza @aruiz I assume that RedHat are still providing exact SRPMs via basically the same mechanism that they provide their customers the RPMs (i.e. the ones receiving the binaries).
At least as far as the GPL is concerned, is there something I'm missing that means they're not complying with that licence (i.e. v2: 3a, v3: 6d)?
Given that AFAIK, the rule in RH is that changes must be upstream first, how are they not actually going above and beyond what's actually required?
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
@MWelchUK @aruiz and now you can’t redistribute that source even if you pay.
clacke
@Migueldeicaza Well, you can redistribute it *once*.
Alberto Ruiz
@clacke @Migueldeicaza @conservancy
I don't think Bradley justifies how we are violating the terms of the GPL
clacke
@aruiz If you are free to enjoy the freedoms and your subscription as long as you don't engage in those freedoms, you are not in fact free to enjoy those freedoms.
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
@krzyzanowskim I still think we need to find a model that can fund this work. I think your license approach for your editor is a worthwhile exploration direction, and so is the gold linker approach.
But these approaches are too burdensome for people that just want to engineer. Perhaps an opportunity to set up a consortium to negotiate licensing
Marcin Krzyzanowski
@Migueldeicaza I sold 4 pcs. I don't know if that's sustainable ;)
Marcin Krzyzanowski
@Migueldeicaza not a single enterprise is good for open source community. change my mind
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
@krzyzanowskim well I’ll be cheering for you. But also, i am wondering if we had a consortium of libraries that companies could license could make this more appealing - some pro-rata or all you can eat.
mathew
@gordonmessmer @Migueldeicaza @mattdm @maxsteenbergen Some people want Red Hat's support.
Other people are quite happy to support Linux themselves, but want to run commercial Linux software that is only supported on distributions identical to RHEL.
Gordon Messmer
@Migueldeicaza @mattdm @maxsteenbergen
"people want ... the one that is certified"
I want to remark on that point specifically. There is not one line of "certification" in RHEL. As a developer, I cannot write certification.
Certification is part of the support contract that Red Hat provides, not a part of the software. The thing that people want is Red Hat's support.
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
@mattdm @maxsteenbergen people don’t want that, people want the exact replica, the one that is certified by assorted third parties for functionality and device drivers.
The bullshit you spew can work on some naive people, but sadly for you, i am not one of those.
Matthew Miller
@maxsteenbergen @Migueldeicaza
Absolutely not. All Red Hat contributions are upstreamed where possible, and made available openly and without restriction at https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms
That might not match precisely the form of the patch in an specific RHEL release, but those _are_ available alongside the binaries. Most differences are due — ironically contrary to the narrative Miguel is pushing — to getting those changes upstream, benefiting everyone and making patches obsolete.
Max Steenbergen
@Migueldeicaza Bit lost in the lingo here, but does this mean Red Hat is trying to benefit from all commits made to RHEL-based distro’s while gating all its own contributions behind a subscription paywall?
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
@bookwar @maxsteenbergen glad we agree the article is factual, let us go to the article:
Aleksandra Fedorova :fedora:
That article is not a lie. It says Red Hat is no longer publishes the sources the way Alma consumed them.
The phrase "gating all its own contributions behind a subscription paywall" is a very different statement.
All RH contributions are public.
Even those RHEL patches, which go to minor-stream branches first and not land in the CentOS Stream directly, _must_ be brought into CentOS Stream before the next minor release of RHEL by the development policy.
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
@bookwar @maxsteenbergen https://almalinux.org/blog/impact-of-rhel-changes/
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
@maxsteenbergen essentially- yes
Aleksandra Fedorova :fedora:
This is a lie.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.