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 would not be published.That's not what they announced.?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.
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 10:13?AM Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> 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 would not be published.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. >Eh your keep dancing around and trying to spin what they did with the source and their intent. RHEL is for all intents and purposes trying to restrict the source code with EULA's/Licensing restrictions, you still have access to the source for paying customers but if you use it for a purpose that they disagree with *cough* rebuild, then they can terminate your account. I can list article after article clearly stating that is what they are doing - https://www.itpro.com/software/open-source/what-red-hats-source-code-restrictions-mean-for-businesses https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/23/red_hat_centos_move/ on and on... again its a d1ck move IMHO, clearly you do not see the it that way but let there be no mistake what Red Hats intentions are at all....they no longer want anyone to be rebuilding their software and distributing it, ya know they need the money, lol....
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