Post AXBONRZ3HbqTefzIBc by alexl@pkm.social
(DIR) More posts by alexl@pkm.social
(DIR) Post #AXBM79kfXgwFruWki0 by thelinuxEXP@mastodon.social
2023-06-29T11:18:11Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Final thoughts on the Red Hat thing: every supporter of the Red Hat move told me that "it's normal to want to prevent people from stealing the hard work and making a clone of it".If you think grabbing the code and reusing it is "stealing", you don't understand FOSS.No matter what RH clones contribute, or if they're worth it. That's not the point. The point is, RH builds their stuff using the GPL, and they have to redistribute using the GPL.
(DIR) Post #AXBM7AXabo4QJdPoxc by boilingsteam@mastodon.cloud
2023-06-29T11:31:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP How are they not redistributing it as GPL? Every GPL stays GPL when you get access to RHEL. They are not changing the license.
(DIR) Post #AXBM7Aivvd90soisds by thelinuxEXP@mastodon.social
2023-06-29T11:19:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Making access to a specific part of that code harder on purpose goes against the principles of Free Software.Period. Money doesn't factor into this, value, contribution, they don't matter. FOSS is free to use, whether you contribute or not. FOSS is for everyone, "freeloaders", developers, anyone. That's the very point.Yes, the code is still technically available with a bit more work in Stream's repos. That's not the issue. The "people are stealing from us" talk is the issue.
(DIR) Post #AXBM7BUn3hQRHF76Ei by thelinuxEXP@mastodon.social
2023-06-29T11:20:45Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
When a company that works in FOSS, and depends on it to operate, calls people using their GPL rights "freeloaders", you know they've lost the plot.That's the problem. The value, the contribution, the development, the clone or not, the business: it DOESN'T MATTER.
(DIR) Post #AXBMVhvy6aK4phWGcy by thelinuxEXP@mastodon.social
2023-06-29T11:36:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@boilingsteam They’re restricting access through their customer portal, which comes with terms and conditions that limit your rights.You can technically still get the code through Stream, but the exact code for RHEL is voluntarily obstructed, they say so themselves by saying they want to prevent clones.It might not be a direct violation, but they clearly don’t want to give the clones the rights they should be granted no matter what.
(DIR) Post #AXBMnVplpbLIWB6uEy by boilingsteam@mastodon.cloud
2023-06-29T11:39:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP The GPL does not say that you can access the code on your terms. It says that the code has to be made available request at least. People don't know how to read license terms anymore.> But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.it does not mean it has to be on github or something
(DIR) Post #AXBN5E7oPaBco5zono by boilingsteam@mastodon.cloud
2023-06-29T11:42:34Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP The GPL even allows you to send source code on paper or with a pigeon if you want to, as long as it reaches the end users. Nowhere it is written that the public at large has access to your GPL code.
(DIR) Post #AXBNIFtDA8bg2nNZDs by thelinuxEXP@mastodon.social
2023-06-29T11:44:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@boilingsteam Yeah, again, that’s exploitative and not in the spirit of the license. There’s the letter, and there’s the spirit. Finding the least convenient way possible isn’t the mebatalitynof a healthy FOSS developer.
(DIR) Post #AXBNNjwUqzFyhRWzY0 by boilingsteam@mastodon.cloud
2023-06-29T11:45:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP People are saying "violations of the GPL" there is no such thing happening.They changed how they distribute the code, and made it less accessible, but that's a totally different topic not related to GPL licenses.
(DIR) Post #AXBNUGClocK8UuFh0C by thelinuxEXP@mastodon.social
2023-06-29T11:44:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@boilingsteam That’s legalese loophole searching.If your way of distributing software is the bare minimum that’s allowed in the license, maybe, if a lawyer looks at it and confirms it’s ok, then you’ve lost the entire meaning of FOSS.They did better before. They’re doing worse now. It’s normal to be annoyed at the change of philosophy and the diminution of the degree of respect of FOSS.
(DIR) Post #AXBNUHltzU1JM9hGOu by boilingsteam@mastodon.cloud
2023-06-29T11:47:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP The whole GPL is a legal document. It's made to be discussed by lawyers. It was even written by a lawyer together with Stallman. I recommend you read the book from RMS on the topic.
(DIR) Post #AXBNUI8EeRsuTQ96DA by a1ba@suya.place
2023-06-29T11:47:01.471647Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP and what do you expect then?The main RHEL clients are enterprise, because of long term support (it's 10 years AFAIK?) and some specific (probably proprietary) software that's being built only for RHEL. There is no reason to build RHEL bug-to-bug compatible distros without the intention of getting away of buying the RHEL license.If you don't need bug-to-bug compatibility, just use another proper distros, like Debian or hell even CentOS Stream.
(DIR) Post #AXBNWe9hjroJMFxKls by thelinuxEXP@mastodon.social
2023-06-29T11:47:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@boilingsteam I’m not saying it violates the GPL. It might (restrictions in the customer portal need to be studied by more knowledgeable people than me).They just don’t respect the general philosophy, by calling people who use their GPL rights freeloaders, and spreading FUD, saying they’re dangerous to FOSS.People using FOSS as intended are dangerous for FOSS? Pure corpo FUD.
(DIR) Post #AXBNh8WXgWIURJdkbw by boilingsteam@mastodon.cloud
2023-06-29T11:49:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP > I’m not saying it violates the GPL.
(DIR) Post #AXBNmrajYHaJf7Kbvk by thelinuxEXP@mastodon.social
2023-06-29T11:50:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@boilingsteam If you read that as “red hat violates the GPL” then you need a new set of eyes.
(DIR) Post #AXBNr4q0FDsdu3TzSy by boilingsteam@mastodon.cloud
2023-06-29T11:51:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP The general philosophy decided by who? The GPL is a legal document and it allows companies to keep the distribution of their source code ON THEIR TERMS. Again, nowhere it is written in the GPL that the code has to be made public at large, and that's just you guys being too used to gihub hosting all the FOSS source code. It was not like that 20 years ago and the GPL existed well before such code repositories.
(DIR) Post #AXBNuDxslb354xfXJw by boilingsteam@mastodon.cloud
2023-06-29T11:51:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP > they have to redistribute it using the GPLimplies that they are not? Or what does that mean then?
(DIR) Post #AXBO1D3sWW7sIwnwHY by thelinuxEXP@mastodon.social
2023-06-29T11:53:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@boilingsteam Decided by the decades of conferences, materials, agreements, way of handling things that the community settled on.Seriously, this purely “word for word” vision is completely out of touch with how FOSS has always worked.
(DIR) Post #AXBO3gVU1A7KCrte3E by just_a_frog@c.im
2023-06-29T11:53:13Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@thelinuxEXP @boilingsteam Nick, you can't simultaneously argue that "only what's legal/allowed matters" and that "violating the spirit of the legal document is bad". These positions are fundamentally incompatible with another.
(DIR) Post #AXBO4XhiEQOJC91eyG by thelinuxEXP@mastodon.social
2023-06-29T11:48:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@a1ba It doesn’t MATTER. IT IS ALLOWED. It’s how FOSS works. No matter if it’s ok, or not, or the intention.
(DIR) Post #AXBO4YIE2fb91O6osq by a1ba@suya.place
2023-06-29T11:52:42.086521Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP the spirit of free software is not only about being free as in freedom but also getting paid for the job as it's not free as beer.Until FOSS community figures this out, we will have underpaid FOSS maintainers.
(DIR) Post #AXBO6KpL4xRhpwRolk by boilingsteam@mastodon.cloud
2023-06-29T11:53:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP oh so you were there when FOSS was invented? Why don't you ask people who are older than you for their thoughts on this
(DIR) Post #AXBO8NZRqhCCvQzQ8G by EricZhang456@pl.starnix.network
2023-06-29T11:54:19.021433Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@a1ba @thelinuxEXP I don’t know if other software like this exists but software I have seen built specifically for RHEL is mostly graphics programs. A lot of proprietary applications with at least 2 of tar, deb and rpm available and industry-standard graphics applications like Autodesk Maya and The Foundry Nuke only ship a RPM and are usually only tested on RHEL. According to the 2021 Studio Platform Survey Report, most studios were running CentOS at 73.8% of studios surveyed using it and RHEL only at 7.7%, which is fewer than Ubuntu (15.4%). So yeah, at least for the VFX industry, most companies don’t pay for RHEL.
(DIR) Post #AXBOJhRwHQIzlQsKtE by thelinuxEXP@mastodon.social
2023-06-29T11:56:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@boilingsteam I started using FOSS in 2006. In all these years, it’s been pretty clear how things were handled, and fortunately we invented something called writing, about 8000 years ago, that lets people learn about things that happened before their time.Thanks to that incredible invention, I don’t need to ask anyone, I can learn on my own, and come to the conclusions that seem to escape you every time.
(DIR) Post #AXBONRZ3HbqTefzIBc by alexl@pkm.social
2023-06-29T11:57:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@boilingsteam @thelinuxEXP Also, do they actually modify the source code or do they just build it and package it as RPMs? Because I don't think building and packaging count as modifications of the source code.And in my opinion if people want more protection they need to invent better licenses, not protesting when some convenience they were used to is revoked.And what would be the next request for the sake of collaboration? Requiring build tools, CI/CD, bug tracking to be FOSS? Good luck...
(DIR) Post #AXBOj14USoPnrLymJM by thelinuxEXP@mastodon.social
2023-06-29T11:53:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@a1ba And you think RH doesn’t make money? Look at their profits. They’re not struggling. They just need to make MORE because that’s what their shareholders say they should do.
(DIR) Post #AXBOj1iu2Yk1sgt3Im by a1ba@suya.place
2023-06-29T12:00:55.668459Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP I agree that IBM took part in it.But also, why really not? Red Hat still hires FOSS developers and gives them the job.
(DIR) Post #AXBOswm1IXenQS4j2m by metalpoetnl@metalhead.club
2023-06-29T12:02:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@boilingsteam @thelinuxEXP it also says you CANNOT stop them from reproducing it and sharing it, which is at odds with RH's T.O.S. - and THAT is probably a license violence and will probably end up in a lawsuit.
(DIR) Post #AXBQQHW7IM9HGr5zPM by phnt@fluffytail.org
2023-06-29T12:16:36.081844Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@a1ba @thelinuxEXP There are some reasons why you would use RHEL rebuilds even in enterprise. One of which is if you are building software or a hardware that will eventually use RHEL. Why should you waste RHEL licenses on prototypes. That's when you need the bug-to-bug compatibility.Also I would say the main part why companies use RHEL is probably the support you get with the subscription and not the long term support.
(DIR) Post #AXBQQIdb81j8kLbThw by a1ba@suya.place
2023-06-29T12:19:57.056696Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@phnt @thelinuxEXP you can request development license for RHEL. And it would be free except they can send somebody to inspect (bruh)
(DIR) Post #AXBSbde5YsuAzlMqw4 by phnt@fluffytail.org
2023-06-29T12:40:34.787345Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@a1ba @thelinuxEXP Yes, you can. But those are only for individual developers and personal use as says the TOS.>If you are interested in the Red Hat Developer Subscriptions for Teams other terms apply and please contact your Red Hat sales associate.And as someone who runs my servers mainly on AlmaLinux, I don't feel comfortable agreeing to their Enterprise TOS, which includes the above mentioned clause about the inspection and other stuff. I technically can run all my servers on RHEL with the developer license, because they seem to allow production use, but I don't want to. So my options are basically wait this shitshow out and see what comes of it, or switch to Debian, which I don't like as much. Or probably the best option right now: Try CentOS Stream and see what it is, but then you throw away some parts of the EL ecosystem (ELRepo, RPM Fusion). EPEL is actually supported on Stream.Also I don't expect RH giving out free developers licences to companies even if it is just for testing and prototype work.
(DIR) Post #AXBZTGVKPqmOaPDyUa by nicemicro@fosstodon.org
2023-06-29T13:33:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@a1ba actually, the "free software" is built around the idea of the freedom of the user. It has zero things in terms of "protecting" the developer.Free Software is actually about restricting the developer so they don't infringe on the freedoms on the users.
(DIR) Post #AXBZTHcoFWMG3tjSnA by a1ba@suya.place
2023-06-29T14:01:20.980754Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nicemicro yeah and it's not like they're stealing user's freedom, because the package sources are still available, now with the exception of the tools that help to create copycats.
(DIR) Post #AXBa7pfZ5mKxESMA7M by nicemicro@fosstodon.org
2023-06-29T14:04:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@a1ba available is not enough. being a copycat is like 1 out of the 4 core freedoms. but, RedHat "only" terminate your contract and makes you pay termination fees if you redistribute, but they won't take the software back you already got.
(DIR) Post #AXBa7qJcgqNbEh69YW by a1ba@suya.place
2023-06-29T14:08:36.146294Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@nicemicro if you want to make a copycat of RHEL, you can figure out exact HEADs and applied patches from CentOS sources yourself. They don't have to make it easy.
(DIR) Post #AXBaEiebZeHjV8BvP6 by a1ba@suya.place
2023-06-29T14:09:57.634522Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nicemicro ...or you can get the license and ask them about the sources, to comply with GPL.
(DIR) Post #AXBcBj37qZSLldMRA8 by didek@101010.pl
2023-06-29T14:31:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP FOSS is like math, a knownleadge how to do things with computers, what to tell them to do something. And as we know grabbing math equations from someone's book and reusing them is stealing.
(DIR) Post #AXBcP6WtrKqmM2fQAK by fossrob@fosstodon.org
2023-06-29T14:15:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP @a1ba Seems unfair to negatively judge anyone by how much money they make. I don't personally have an upper limit on how much I'd be willing to get paid for my job.
(DIR) Post #AXBcP7PqZ2np6SNIoK by thelinuxEXP@mastodon.social
2023-06-29T14:17:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fossrob @a1ba I don’t judge them on the money, I judge this move, billed as “they steal our money” compared to their profits
(DIR) Post #AXBcP85K4pynB5mQSW by a1ba@suya.place
2023-06-29T14:34:06.635140Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP @fossrob I don't think that making money in current world should be a sin. Again, maybe it's IBM forcing them but it's still fair because you can just install Stream if you really want that RPM jankiness.
(DIR) Post #AXBcX7uqaaJYyEh3zc by fossrob@fosstodon.org
2023-06-29T14:21:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP @a1ba Oh right. What then, in your opinion, is a reasonable percentage of Red Hat's revenue that a clone is allowed to take then?
(DIR) Post #AXBcX8VMOpWOnTmDuC by thelinuxEXP@mastodon.social
2023-06-29T14:24:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fossrob @a1ba All of it if that’s what happens. It’s on RH to provide better value for their service so people use it.Also that’s the absolute wrong way of looking at it. The issue isn’t monetary at all, it’s a matter of ignoring the principles of free software. What RH did doesn’t stop clones from taking their business either. It’s just pure pettiness. It makes their work harder but it won’t stop them.
(DIR) Post #AXBcX9HvUGMzE6V0bY by a1ba@suya.place
2023-06-29T14:35:41.814071Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP @fossrob as I said earlier, they also don't have to make it easy.
(DIR) Post #AXBl4oTOBOtk9HQMAS by boilingsteam@mastodon.cloud
2023-06-29T16:11:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP Or you know, you can ask people like RMS who actually did something useful before 2006 and who could tell you more about the spirit of the GPL, because you know, they wrote it
(DIR) Post #AXBp8xG7rG8yNCS0Om by thelinuxEXP@mastodon.social
2023-06-29T16:56:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@boilingsteam And I am pretty sure he would be in agreement, after refusing to speak to me because my channel isn’t named the GNU/Linux experiment.
(DIR) Post #AXBpbaGARpqpRL7bOa by boilingsteam@mastodon.cloud
2023-06-29T17:02:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@thelinuxEXP you know, he answers emails... you don't have to make a video to get an answer
(DIR) Post #AXCNPS7GITB79KLKGO by boilingsteam@mastodon.cloud
2023-06-29T23:20:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Jase @thelinuxEXP the redistribution part is indeed problematic. But you could also read it as "you can redistribute the current software you were given but then we are not obligated to keep giving you access to the next updates" which does not seem to break the GPL per se. But yeah would certainly want to hear a few legal opinions on that one.
(DIR) Post #AXCNSSEoIhjaObIyqu by nicemicro@fosstodon.org
2023-06-29T23:11:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@a1ba the point is, that by the GPL, you have to get the source code to the exact product you're given, not a "find it over in that garbage pile, it's there somewhere".and by the gpl, then you are allowed to get that source and redistribute it. If redhat has a problem with that, they have a problem of one of the cornerstones of software freedoms. This is not an opinion, this is a fact.
(DIR) Post #AXCNST3VGEHevp1Sro by a1ba@suya.place
2023-06-29T23:21:28.625634Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nicemicro I think in that case RedHat probably will terminate the support contract.Not sure how they will find a person who actually distributed the SRPM. (By the way, are SRPMS also GPL licensed?..)In that sense, they could also do typical hardware vendor move, just give you a tarball with the sources. How the user is supposed build it is user's problem.
(DIR) Post #AXCOKVwcjet1WsZmsa by nicemicro@fosstodon.org
2023-06-29T23:24:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@a1ba yeah. And this is what they do and they have the right to do that and technically they could give the source printed on toilet paper, so I guess they aren't doing the worst possible thing.But when they go on air disparaging one of the fundamental software freedoms (redistribution), I can't take their "we're fully committed" message seriously.
(DIR) Post #AXCOKWlJhBR646IGtU by a1ba@suya.place
2023-06-29T23:31:13.888277Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nicemicro >technically they could give the source printed on toilet paperReminds me how I found the whole GPL license in accordion fold for Chinese MP3 player box :)>But when they go on air disparaging one of the fundamental software freedomsThey probably think providing Stream is enough. That's why they killed old CentOS, which didn't solved a problem but spawned a bunch of rebuilds doing nothing useful in general, only changing the logo and distro name.