On 7/24/23 10:12, Gordon Messmer wrote:> On 2023-07-22 09:55, frank saporito wrote: >> On 7/22/23 02:29, Gordon Messmer wrote: >>> From my point of view, Red Hat doesn't really sell software. They >>> give away software.? All of their software is available at no >>> charge, typically in an unbranded release.? What Red Hat sells is >>> support. >> >> Does Red Hat give away software anymore? > > > Yes?? I'm not aware of any Red Hat software that isn't Free Software. > > >> I am confused.? Last month Red Hat announced that the source code >> would not be published. > > > That's not what they announced.? The major-release branch of RHEL's > source code is still published to the CentOS Stream git repos. > > I think it's important to point out that Red Hat never published *all* > of RHEL's package source code.? For the first six months of any > release of RHEL, they would publish de-branded source by essentially > taking one artifact from each build (the src.rpm), unpacking that in a > git repository, removing the primary source code archive, debranding > what was left, committing all of that, and then pushing the result.? > It was basically git as a fancy FTP. > > They've stopped doing that, in favor of publishing the major-release > branch of the git repos for the entire primary support lifecycle of > the major release. > > >> The spirit of GPL was meant to force sharing and prevent the >> commercialization of the volunteer work of many. > > > It definitely wasn't.? GPL software can't be made closed-source. > Customers have to receive the source code (or an offer for it), and > they have the rights that the license guarantees.? But GPL software > can definitely be commercialized. >Gordon, I would like clarification on your recent post. There may be some nuances in your language that I need help understanding. Let me know if you disagree with any of these statements: 1. Red Hat is no longer posting source code to git.centos.org. (ref: Red Hat's June 21, 2023 announcement, https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-stream, and Hackaday article published June 30, 2023, https://hackaday.com/2023/06/23/et-tu-red-hat/) 2. Red Hat will release source code to partners and customers via the Red Hat Customer Portal. (ref: Red Hat announcement) 3. Per Red Hat EULA, customers can not freely distribute the source code. (ref: Red Hat EULA) 4. Red Hat's policy decision has made it difficult (maybe impossible) for "clone" distributions to continue existing. (ref: Google "red hat source code") 5. Red Hat's policy change contradicts the GPL's spirit. The first four statements are facts (at least, I think they are.)? The fifth question is opinion. I am not engaging in a heated debate - just trying to gain understanding. I appreciate your consideration. frank
On 2023-07-24 13:47, frank saporito wrote:> Let me know if you disagree with any of these statements: > > 1. Red Hat is no longer posting source code to git.centos.org.Correct.? Red Hat used to publish a de-branded subset of RHEL source code there, and they've discontinued that process.? The current code for RHEL is now published to the CentOS Stream repos.> 2. Red Hat will release source code to partners and customers via the > Red Hat Customer Portal. (ref: Red Hat announcement)Also correct.? This is the only channel through which Red Hat ever posted complete code for RHEL.? It hasn't been changed.> 3. Per Red Hat EULA, customers can not freely distribute the source > code. (ref: Red Hat EULA)It's a little more complex than that, but probably close enough for now.> 4. Red Hat's policy decision has made it difficult (maybe impossible) > for "clone" distributions to continue existing. (ref: Google "red hat > source code")This is the point at which I think we start to wade out into the territory of myth.? It has never been possible to create a clone of RHEL from the code that Red Hat published.? First, because Red Hat doesn't publish the information that would be required to create reproducible builds.? But more importantly, because RHEL has one life cycle per minor release, and distributions built from the old git.centos.org repositories had *at best* one life cycle per major release. CentOS Stream also has one life cycle per major release, and conforms to the interface compatibility guide for the matching RHEL major release. Distributions derived from CentOS Stream can have either lifecycles per minor release *or* one lifecycle per major release.? Unlike the old source publication process, they can have continuous or overlapping life cycles. Yes, this involves more steps than the old process.? The next natural question is whether the additional work is justified by the improvement in the outcome.? And from my point of view, that is a very easy "yes". I understand that it's confusing, but CentOS was never a substitute for RHEL, and never provided the benefits of RHEL's model.? It is not the "free RHEL" that many users tend to think it was: https://fosstodon.org/@gordonmessmer/110648143030974242 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf_EkU3x2G0 ... and conversely, CentOS Stream is a much better stable LTS for self-supported systems than you might believe: https://medium.com/@gordon.messmer/in-favor-of-centos-stream-e5a8a43bdcf8> 5. Red Hat's policy change contradicts the GPL's spirit.As you acknowledge, that's a subjective question.? I would say "no." I think the entire history of the free-as-in-speech vs free-as-in-beer clarification is proof that we wanted to ensure the right to improve software if you didn't like its limitations, not the right to give away software if you didn't like its price. But I also think it's important to acknowledge that the thing that rebuilders are asking for (the RPM source repositories) aren't GPL licensed, they're MIT licensed, which makes the question something of a non-sequitur.