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.

  • knowncarbage@lemmy.fmhy.mlEnglish
    3·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • dlarge6510@lemm.eeEnglish
      5·
      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

      1. Stallman would just say break the contract as it isnt legal anyway
      2. 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:

      1. The right to run the program for any purpose. This means IBM/RH can never stop you using the program for any reason.
      2. 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.
      3. 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.
      4. 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/