- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Some mix of wrong and right, the exact proportions of which I’ll leave as an exercise to the reader.
Some mix of wrong and right, the exact proportions of which I’ll leave as an exercise to the reader.
There are a few completely fair points in there calling out what they are legally allowed to do (e.g. they are not directly violating GPL) and are doing (contributing changes back upstream, they claim “always”), that’s about the only “right” this reader found.
Have some quotes that demonstrate the “wrong”:
This quote is particularly damning to me. It’s right in the preamble of the GPL “Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.” Emphasis mine. It’s a legal right, that I can redistribute it, whether or not I modify it in anyway. Stomping on my legal rights is not a threat.
Whole-heartedly agree on the quote and it stuck out to me even before coming to the comments here. Redhat might not like that people are repacking “their” software, but the spirit of GPL software is that you can charge for it but folks can also go through the trouble of building it themselves should they not want to go that route and are able to support/debug/maintain the software themselves on their own hardware.
If they don’t think the clauses of GPL are fair, then they should probably stop distributing Linux entirely because their entire business model is founded off of profiting off the work of other open source contributions.
One could argue Redhat already does this on packages they have not improved or submitted contributions for.
I actually agree with Red Hat’s decision to not make their sources publicly available to non-customers, and I think this is a good example to set for free software companies. However, this quote shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what free software is. It’s not a “threat to open source companies everywhere”; it’s a feature. It’s the horse you rode in on.
The SFC has suggested this, and Alma Linux wrote about their understanding of Red Hat’s terms, but it seems that Red Hat may terminate contracts with customers who redistribute their sources. I think that’s quite nasty and very much disagree with it. Grsecurity already does this, and my opinions about that company are the same. I thought it was interesting that Red Hat didn’t address this at all in their post…
There is a very big difference between RH and grsec here though, and I hate that people just brush over it. And that is that true, you might not be able build the exact compatible operating system with just names and logos exchanged easily anymore. But no part of their stack is closed source or only available to subscribers, is it? Who pays the pipewire dev and in which distribution did it appear in first? Who paid the systemd developer and is currently the main company behind it? What about NetworkManager? GNOME?
I only know second-hand details. I’ve skimmed the webpage. If you know more, please let me know!
I never said it was, and I would support Red Hat if they only made their free software offerings available to paying customers. I think this is how a free software company should work. Most free software is not sustainable today, and it would be nice if Red Hat could be a good example of how to build a successful free software company.
Even if Red Hat terminates the contracts of customers who share the sources, this wouldn’t be against the GPL, but I think it would be nasty to scare your customers into not exercising their granted freedoms under the GPL. This is the only point of contention I have. After spending about an hour digging through the Red Hat site for the terms of service which supposedly say this, I found some very vague terms. We’ll have to see how this shakes out in reality.
I’m well aware of how important Red Hat is to the free software ecosystem :)
Most recently, they sponsored and organized a hackfest for getting HDR on Wayland compositors.
I’m unaware of any piece of software in RHEL that’s GPL that you can’t run in any other distro down to their specific version. It’s true that it’s hard to get the “complete and bug-for-bug-compatible operating system”, but all the components are there, be it in CentOS Stream or fedora, and a lot of stuff is theirs, not just added changes, but a big part of the codebase.
A grsecurity enabled kernel is “just” their patchset and any version is only available to their customers, no developer program or anything, there’s no open upstream they provide with their patches or anything.
If you have software that you want to work on RPM-based distributions, test against fedora, or CentOS Stream; or, if you have clients insisting on RHEL, use a developer account, the options are there. Or don’t and refer bug reports from RHEL users to their distribution’s support, they’re paying for it and it should be their first PoC anyways.
My post wasn’t only to go against yours, but against a general attitude; that Red Hat just takes upstream code, makes an enterprise distro out of it and then charges big bucks, terminating anyone’s contract who wishes to exercise their rights under GPL. The question is rather what’s the reason to actually redistribute recompiled code when most of it is available in their own funded upstream? People pretend Red Hat is squeezing a community that made them possible in the first place. But the truth is rather the reverse in my opinion. Without Red Hat, the community most likely wouldn’t exist. Their first release of Red Hat Linux was in 1994, when the kernel was about three years old and I guess by most people considered a toy rather than an alternative to UNIX. I’d wager that without them, the Linux ecosystem today would look much different, if more than a niche at all.
I don’t think the same can be said for grsecurity.
I can’t find a lot in here to disagree with. Of course I appreciate Red Hat for all the free software they’ve developed, funded, and profited from over the past few decades. I use GNOME on Wayland, Systemd, Pipewire, libvirt, virt-manager, and plenty of other software, I’m sure.
Red Hat is doing something positive for the community they don’t need to do, which is nice. Personally, I would prefer fewer people wrote this off as a requirement or something “expected” without understanding how the GPL works.
You should be able to share software you find useful with your neighbor; preventing people from doing so is enforcing antisocial behavior. Redistribution is what makes free software work. Whether most of it is available somewhere else or not, that’s something customers have the right to do.
While it would be nice, in this scenario, if Red Hat could say, “you can’t redistribute this; you need to make significant changes,” it just wouldn’t be free software if they could say that. For the same reason, I don’t think the Anti-Capitalist Software License is good (think how much worse things would be if the kernel was licensed under that!). If the Linux kernel was licensed under a non-copyleft license, I’m sure Red Hat would have adopted an “open core” model. Or they would do what Codeweavers does with CrossOver.
Profiting from free software is hard. Sourcehut isn’t profitable yet, but they’re close to breaking even (and they don’t even require you to pay!). But if we remove any of the freedoms the GPL provides, we end up in a situation where the software controls the user, and the developer controls the software, so the developer controls the user. Every freedom is necessary, because without them, it will become proprietary software the user can’t control.
More than likely, FreeBSD would have taken GNU/Linux’s place, assuming the GNU/HURD people couldn’t manage to organize themselves by that time. The legal problems with FreeBSD would be resolved around that time. Novell was another commercial free software contributor at the time, though, so perhaps they would have been responsible for more programs if not Red Hat. I still use Evolution today. But yes, it’s impossible to deny the positive impact Red Hat had in its formative years and over time. I think it’s disingenuous or ignorant to pretend otherwise.
At the same time, it’s thanks to Linus that Red Hat was able to be significant. If it was released under the original anti-commercial license, things would be far different again.
Personally, I would still sooner deal with Red Hat than Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, Google, or any other conglomerate…
This is a bit of a strawman in my opinion. I’m sure Red Hat won’t care if you, as a customer, use their sources, rebuild them and “share it with your neighbor”. They won’t terminate an account over that, at least I’d be very surprised if they did. I don’t consider “downloading all sources, removing any branding, rebuilding, offering for free and selling commercial support” the same though, but there’s no mechanism in the GPL to differentiate between those.
Agreed, and nobody is denying them this right. However, at the same time, Red Hat has the right to terminate the accounts with customers if they decide that the business relationship costs them more money than it makes them. The right to choose who to have business with is not stronger or weaker than the GPL.
Yes, I did not want to imply that it was all Red Hat that mattered. I just wanted to go against what some people imply, that Red Hat is just freeloading on Open Source and now want to restrict this right to others. E.g. in a video in another thread, Jeff Geerling says something along the lines “Red Hat didn’t build the Linux kernel, nor do they own it” which I think is disingenuous: they never claimed they own the Linux kernel, and they’re the second largest contributor to it after Intel, and relevant portion of Intel’s contributions are drivers specific to their own hardware and as such, only usable in their ecosystem. Plus the kernel is still available in CentOS Stream, which goes above and beyond GPL requirements.
I can see people being upset losing free enterprise-grade distributions (though personally in my limited experience could find nothing to like about it), but at the same time, most of the complainers weren’t actually covered by the GPL at all because Red Hat did not supply them with the binaries anyways.
I agree that it’s particularly damning, but for a whole different reason. Anybody who considers “a hobbyist- and hackers-only activity” a “threat” to “open source” fundamentally no longer Gets It and is themselves an enemy of Free Software!
I understand “we do not find value in RHEL rebuild.” At least, I understand that it means “we do not find the value [to Red Hat] outweighs the cost [to Red Hat].” I don’t understand how “simply rebuilding code… represents a real threat to open source companies.” It makes it sound like the rebuilders are doing something wrong.
Sure, you can say that it hurts your profits if others are providing an equivalent to your service for free, but if that isn’t acceptable, why allow it? Moreso, why allow it for years and then suddenly claim the communities built around that decision are a “threat”?
Maybe I’m misreading, but I think I would respect this position a lot more if it was simply “we can no longer afford the competitive disadvantage,” rather than implying various open source communities are actually exploiting and damaging open source.