Linux

I have one major quibble with your analysis. It is this: Redhat no longer exists as an organization. Redhat is merely a trademark of IBM. You can't defend IBM's actions based on Redhat's history. That was a different company

On one side, you have Red Hat, a long time champion of open source software, that has poured billions of dollars into open source development, and which has 1000s of employees who not only on ‘company’ time but in their own time manage, develop, contribute, and create open source code. They have funded countless successful and unsuccessful projects that we all use.

As far as I'm concerned, this is simply not relevant to the issue at hand. Yes, Red Hat has made many, many contributions to open source over the years. That is beyond question, and I thank them for it. It does nothing to excuse their current behavior though. All of those contributions were freely made under the GPL. Red Hat cannot retroactively say "well, we've made enough contributions that we think these shouldn't be free any more, please pay us money." Under the GPL there is literally no threshold where that is allowed.

Red Hat knows this of course, so instead they're putting the source behind a click-through license agreement. In order to access their source trees you now have to agree to their license, which states that you're not allowed to redistribute what you've been given. Of course the GPL also has language specifically designed to prevent such attempts. There's a "further restrictions" clause that allows those receiving GPL source code to remove any further restrictions that weren't in the GPL originally. That would allow Red Hat's customer to legally redistribute that source code, as was always intended under the GPL.

But Red Hat lawyers know this too! They know that their customers have the legal right to strip off the extra restrictions imposed by that click-through license wrapper. So how then do they enforce this restriction? With threats and coercion. "Forgo your GPL rights, or we'll stop supporting the software we sold you / deny you any further access." What amount of past open source contributions make it OK for Red Hat to threaten their customers in an effort to prevent them from exercising their rights under the GPL? I say there is no amount of past contribution that makes Red Hat's current behavior acceptable, just like there's no amount of past contribution that would make it OK for them to close the source entirely.

Here’s the interesting part for me. As far as I can see, none of the users are jumping to the Rebuilder’s defence of Red Hat’s accusation that the Rebuilders provide nothing back to the community.

I'll be happy to do so. At least some of the users of downstream distros are using them so they can validate the compatibility of their code with RHEL, without having to subject themselves to Red Hat's licensing terms. Jeff Geerling is one such example. They are (or in some case were) providing direct value to Red Hat's customer, and thus indirect value to Red Hat themselves, by validating that their own contributions would work in RHEL. Red Hat's choices make their efforts harder, and call into question whether FOSS contributors should continue to make efforts that indirectly benefit Red Hat.

Personally, the company I work for has been using CentOS for many years because Red Hat wanted to place onerous licensing restrictions on any use of RHEL in the cloud, which is where most of our testing is done. To be clear, my company doesn't use RHEL internally on its own production systems, nor do we redistribute it in the products we sell. The only reason we care about testing against RHEL is because many of our customers use RHEL on their production systems. Our only motivation is to make sure that our products work correctly when they interoperate with RHEL systems at our customer sites. Are we "taking" from Red Hat by doing this? I say the opposite. Our customers benefit directly, and Red Hat benefits indirectly when such mutual customers can do more and better things with their RHEL systems.

And let me tell you, Red Hat has not been fun to work with. We're a member of their partner network, we're doing this testing so we can help our mutual customers do the things they want to do, and Red Hat has been a pain in our ass at many turns. Their awful account management makes it harder to onboard new employees and get them set up for testing on RHEL. Red Hat threw licensing curveballs at us like "oh btw cloud usage is no longer covered under the partner license, move all your testing on-prem in 30 days or pay us $texas, kthxbye!" (We scrambled and switched to CentOS in the cloud in record time instead.) They subject us to annoying, time-consuming audits. CentOS for testing is a breeze by comparison, with no need to worry about accounts or audits or subscriptions or entitlement usage.

Accusation that the Rebuilders provide nothing back to the community.

Actually, what Redhat are saying about rebuilders is that they "don't add value" - and that's for Redhat, NOT to the community which they patently do. That's quite a badly twisted misquote there, friend.

Also, Redhat didn't create open source software. They're a big player, sure, but I remember writing and releasing my code back in the 80s and 90s when it was called Freeware and Public Domain and distributed on cassette tape.

I don't want to enter in the debate, I don't have a horse in this race and I am not particularly informed. This said:

On one side, you have Red Hat, a long time champion of open source software, that has poured billions of dollars into open source development, and which has 1000s of employees who not only on ‘company’ time but in their own time manage, develop, contribute, and create open source code.

This sounds really weird to me. They are a profitable company, "pouring billions" makes it sound like they sacrificed or donated money, while they invested money. They are not a charity, and what they do they do it for financial gains. Growing an ecosystem that eventually will lead to more customers is still in the company's interests.

The fact then that their employees do stuff in their free time seem completely irrelevant to the point, as people are not owned by the company they work for, and none of their merits should transfer to the company they work for during the day.

One other thing I want to add: I've read a bunch of comments about how the Rebuilds were used in educational and scientific settings, and that there is a prohibitive cost for RHEL in those environments. After reading so many comments about it, I have to believe that Red Hat is going to make some modification to their Developer License program to allow more than 16 'seats' for those use cases.

First off your argument that red hat deserves to see returns on their investment. But restricting redistribution of "their" software is a direct violation of the GPL license that they agreed to by working with GPL software.

Not to mention that the reason rocky Linux exist is because red hat killed centos.

Ree Hat has stabbed the community in the twice with the help of IBM and greed. My only hope is Oracle sues them over this express GPL violation, or that IBM's lawyers realize there will be trouble. In my opinion anyone at red hat that tries to justify this should be ignored.

I have not listened to the podcast unfortunately.

Rebuilders are fine, and RedHat is fine to not spend the effort to debrand their source rpms. The problem is one of value. The value RedHat provides for some people is probably worth more than RedHat charges. The value RedHat provides to others is less than the effort it takes to renew a developer license once a year for 16 installs. The problem is that there are several who are ending support for RHEL because they fall into the latter group (notably Jeff Geerling for ansible roles). RHEL losing out on that support might be huge, might not, only time will tell.

Nice post, and a good overview over why RedHat is doing what it’s doing.

Before reading this I wasn’t really feeling good about redhat and the stuff happening rn but now i’m able to understand the decision making and there’s still hope for me that redhat won’t turn into a shitshow in a couple years haha

Also working with RedHat in the past has been quite nice so it’s good that i don’t feel a slight hate against the company anymore.

Quite hard to solve the problem when everyone is so emotional

Thanks again for the very informative post!

What's the harm in doing a rebuild? Serious question. I simply don't understand where the harm comes from. I would appreciate any insight. Thanks.

Go to GNU.org's "philosophy" page and read it from the wildebeest's mouth. It clearly says that you must have the right to redistribute without having to do changes (i.e. develop it further, as RH seems to imply that their problem is with the clones). So what RH is doing is against Gnu's philosophy, and against the GPL. Yes, RH has contributed massively, but their ISO is 9 GB. They didn't write all that 9 GB of code. And most of that code is GPL. So they need to allow SRPMs to be downloaded and redistributed freely to their subscribers without repercussions for redistributing. If they want to protect their bottomline, they should close the source of some of the apps they have developed themselves, and aren't under the GPL.

I think that people who download rebuilds are by and large not going to pay for licenses. The hobbyists running a rebuild for their home lab will move to another distro. Massive legacy enterprises will use unsupported distros until it becomes untenable, and are very likely to move to another distro. Hyperscalers like oracle and Amazon will either figure out loopholes and/or eventually move new products to be based on another distro. Red hat's contributions to FOSS and being both technically and politically stable led to many technologies being built around red hat. But the only reason that this ecosystem exists is because of Red Hat's reputation of stability and openness, which they have slowly destroyed over the past few years. And I do think that this will eventually lead to lost revenue.

I think the way this question is framed (i.e. by RedHat) is poisoned- it comes across as 'Linux is a collection of distributions produced by different organisations. Some of these are 'worthy' but some of them are 'only rebuilders''. Whilst I do get the whole 'rebuild from RHEL package sources' thing, it's worth pointing out that all Linux distros are 'rebuilds' to some extent, e.g. in RedHat's case:

• YUM came from Yellowdog Linux
• Gnome from the Gnome organisation
• SystemD from Lennart Poettering & co
• the Kernel from Kernel.org
• OpenSSH from Open BSD
• X from xorg/Wayland
• GCC etc From Gnu org

etc.

Consider that we don't have this sort of conversation about Debian/Ubuntu/Mint/Kali etc. In many cases, e.g. Jeff Geerling, the 'rebuilders' are arguably driving support and sales for RHEL far more than any 'freeloading', just like RedHat themselves. It's a community and RedHat trying to turn their distro into a closed-source offering doesn't change that or reframe the argument.

Was Almalinux and Alpine charging customers for support in their builds?

I might be wrong but AFAIK the only other big company that's contributing to Fedora is Facebook/Meta. If Oracle etc. were also contributing to Fedora, my gut feeling is that Red Hat would not be so pissed about rebuilding RHEL because RHEL would also be benefiting from Oracle's Fedora contributions.

The free as in freedom principle isn't violated. GPL stands. So why all the rage? People call RedHat IBMified, what the hell does it even mean? Has IBM done anything to the community?

Really there is no principle being defended. People's workflow isn't even impacted as it stands, they just have to figure out new paths going forward.

This is really well said, and I think I agree with almost all of it.

I would love to hear your thoughts on how CentOS and that whole debacle play into this. I'm not super familiar with the details of how that went down, but iirc Redhat basically owned and operated that almost as a "farm-team" or proving grounds. Rocky and Alma only sprung up after Redhat unceremoniously killed CentOS (after CentOS offered a bomb ass distro with 10 years of support). The rebuilders were trying to fill a void that Redhat created. Part of me feels like Redhat created this problem in the first place but like I said I dont know a ton about it.

Maybe they felt the same way about CentOS, but since they owed it...why couldn't they have forced CentOS to participate in the bug reporting, feedback loop?