Post AXfrvgJmJc90GpOxPM by carlwgeorge@fosstodon.org
 (DIR) More posts by carlwgeorge@fosstodon.org
 (DIR) Post #AXcrvaYl8ra6w9U7Ga by shaun@mastodon.xyz
       2023-07-12T18:05:23Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Am I following this right?#RedHat tried to extinguish #RockyLinux and #AlmaLinux by introducing some socially-dubious license terms to the RHEL sources. Rocky, confident in a legal path forward, has vowed to continue unabated; Alma is considering their options but not going anywhere. Meanwhile, Oracle took the opportunity to loudly reassert its free RHEL clone, and now #SUSE has committed $10M to launching an entirely _new_ RHEL fork!Whatever IBM hoped to accomplish, surely it wasn't this. 🍿
       
 (DIR) Post #AXcu8xAoZk52kGmkts by traecer@techhub.social
       2023-07-12T18:30:04Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @shaun yep, that's all about right.
       
 (DIR) Post #AXfrvgJmJc90GpOxPM by carlwgeorge@fosstodon.org
       2023-07-14T04:49:29Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @shaun Not quite right, no new license or subscription terms were introduced.  The no redistribution clause has always been there for RHEL binaries and sources obtained via subscription.  The minimum requirement of some of the licenses involved is to provide sources to those you provide binaries to.  RH went beyond that by posting the sources for the latest minor versions of RHEL (not older EUS or ELS versions) in a few additional ways, in public and not bound by the no redistribution clause.