Linux

48314 readers

83 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

RHEL no longer open source (self.linux)

submitted 1 year ago by KeyLowMike85 to c/[email protected]

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Seems like IBM is going to make RHEL closed source. What's everyone's opinion about the move? I feel RHEL is now the evil villain distro of the community.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The RHEL approach seems to involve only supplying source code to customers already consuming binaries who will already be under other restrictions as they have agreeded to other T&C's.

RHEL has been moving towards this for a decade, it seems unlikely they have forgotten about the GPL.

https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/23/red_hat_centos_move/

The Register seems to think they are acting perfectly in line with the GPL.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They are acting perfectly in line with the GPL. The GPL only grants you access to source code for the binary you already have.

If you don't have the binary/executable you don't have the right to the source code.

It will be interesting how RH provide access to GPL source (that which they have modified) going forwards. I suspect they will heavily push a subscription to centos stream which solves everything, but they have to provide the source regardless, and are allowed to charge a reasonable fee for admin and media costs etc. I don't think a hefty centos subscription will meet that, however they could give a discounted access hoping that you then continue at full cost later.

Anything they have licensed under BSD etc would have none of those protections. They don't have to give you anything, which is one of the arguments against the GPL from the BSD camp, that the GPL gives the user the same rights as the developer.

So to get source for many projects (modified by RH, otherwise go somewhere else) you will have to have a Centos stream subscription. But anything GPL will in practice be available upon request as long as you have the corresponding binary, which you can obtain from any installation of Centos of RHEL as is within your rights. But expect to have to push past the sales reps who insist you get a subscription. If they like they merely have to charge you $10 for a CD-R in the post, if they wish to be slightly annoying.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Is that not what the article covers?

RHEL customers can request the source code, they cannot distribute it. If you are a RHEL customer with a license agreement, just ask. I don't think they will be sending corporate customer requests via microfiche in the post in 30 working days. Where it was once easy for anyone to get RHEL's source code, going forward it will be a service only for customers who agree to be bound by an IBM legal agreement upon receipt of code or access to the tree.

CentOS was very useful, so they bought it, let it spread and then killed it abruptly. They have since watched Oracle, Alma & Rocky offer solutions to CentOS withdrawal, make decade long promises to their customers and get comfortable before breaking the whole eco-system of decade long 'binary compatibility with RHEL' systems.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You are only correct for software not under the GPL. For software under the GPL, IBM/RH would be in breach of the GPL contract itself.

RHEL customers can request the source code

Incorrect: Anyone with the binary can request the source code. - The caveat is you may have to go to court to prove it.

they cannot distribute it.

Incorrect: Redhat gave them the right to distribute any GPL program when they gave them that program. As RH gave them that program they also gave them the right to distribute it. By distributing it the customer may be in breach of contract, but

Stallman would just say break the contract as it isnt legal anyway
The contract is likley void as RH gave the right for distribution so RH will have to prove that they are able to take it away via this contract, which the GPL states is not possible as the owner of the program (the customer) has the legal right to delete any restrictions that interfere with the rights granted by RH under the GPL.

You will have to go to court to prove this. Hmm, that issue has popped up twice

Where it was once easy for anyone to get RHEL’s source code, going forward it will be a service only for customers who agree to be bound by an IBM legal agreement upon receipt of code or access to the tree

That is not legal. If you, anyone even a 10 year old child in Africa has the binary licensed under the GPL then IBM/RH legally must provide source code (if they modified said code) ti said child upon request. IF IBM FAIL TO DO SO THEN THEY ARE IN BREACH OF CONTRACT AND LOSE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE GPL

The child will have to go to court to prove this... f*ck.

This is basic Free Software stuff and so many are confused about it for the very reason Richard Stallman continues to speak about Free Software. Free Software as defined ed by the FSF and implemented by the GNU GPL v2 or later or similar copyleft compatible licenses from the FSF or others has nothing to do with Open Source software. Open Source does none of this, with Open Source you have no guarantee of rights and may never see the source code without an NDA because Open Source isn't about the rights but about the development. The term was coined to make Free Software something business could understand, concentrating on the development model and totally ignoring the political side.

The problem is everyone has become too confused about the subject because they think in terms of Open Source while Stallman runs all over the world trying to re-educate everybody. So lets make it clear again. The GNU GPL is a Free Software license that uses COPYRIGHT LAW in a way to GUARANTEE the end user certain RIGHTS that can NOT be removed or adjusted by anything other than a later version of the GNU GPL, at the option of the USER. These rights that IBM/RH give to the users under the GPL are:

The right to run the program for any purpose. This means IBM/RH can never stop you using the program for any reason.
The right to distribute verbatim copies. By giving you, me or any customer a GPL program they also grant a right to distribute said program. Such copies must remain under the GPL and the person(s) getting the copies are granted the same rights.
The right to modify the program to study it and adapt it to your needs. This obviously needs access to the source, which the GPL later goes on to describe as being given upon request and a reasonable admin/postage fee may be charged. The GPL v3 goes further to make sure you provide an electronic and buildable version of the source.
The right to distribute the modified versions.

Basically it boils down to this. RH are not legally able to place any restrictions for anyone, customer or not, who has the binary, if it is licensed under the GPL. They can however make you go to court to prove tthat, which means they can scare you off. For anything not protected by the GPL or similar they can certainly do this. BSD licensed stuff goes like this all the time for example. So RH can NOT do this with GPL'ed programs BUT, and this is where the problem really is, YOU will need to take them to court to establish that.

So RH is playing the shitty "take us to court game". It's happened before.

People should read the GPL and learn what Free Software is. If they dont they will think RH have some legal way to do this, when in fact (for GPL software) they dont and are merely saying that you take them to court if you are hard enough.

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/