[HN Gopher] Keeping Open Source Open
___________________________________________________________________
Keeping Open Source Open
Author : deafcalculus
Score : 22 points
Date : 2023-06-29 20:44 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (rockylinux.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (rockylinux.org)
| fariszr wrote:
| > One option is through the usage of UBI container images which
| are based on RHEL and available from multiple online sources
| (including Docker Hub). Using the UBI image, it is easily
| possible to obtain Red Hat sources reliably and unencumbered. We
| have validated this through OCI (Open Container Initiative)
| containers and it works exactly as expected.
|
| > Another method that we will leverage is pay-per-use public
| cloud instances. With this, anyone can spin up RHEL images in the
| cloud and thus obtain the source code for all packages and
| errata. This is the easiest for us to scale as we can do all of
| this through CI pipelines, spinning up cloud images to obtain the
| sources via DNF, and post to our Git repositories automatically.
|
| That's quite the workaround, the rocky team has proven it's
| willing to get hacky if needed.
| axus wrote:
| I was poking around the Rocky Linux website, and wondering where
| to download the latest source code for Rocky 9.2? Let's say IBM
| decides not to burn up the ecosystem, will Oracle / Alma start
| using the source that Rocky exfiltrates?
|
| Related question, as a Red Hat subscriber can I still distribute
| Red Hat ISO and source code? It seems like I should be able to
| distribute ISO images and source after obtaining them.. but not
| repackage it? I don't plan to impose any restrictions on the
| people I distribute to.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| Are the RHEL SRPMS watermarked for individual Customers in any
| way? It seems like Redhat has no mechanism to stop a torrent of
| the SRPMS showing-up. Attribution would be exceedingly difficult.
| Since distribution of FLOSS-licensed source isn't copyright
| infringement it's not like they could DMCA it away.
|
| Arguably the specfiles are able to be copyrighted. I wonder what
| the license is like for those.
| geerlingguy wrote:
| It sounds like they have two different mechanisms they can pull
| from currently, which will get them to parity with RHEL releases.
|
| Red Hat would need to shift a few knobs and probably offend quite
| a few people running UBI images at least (including a zillion
| folks in the OpenShift community who rely on them) to cut off
| this current approach to getting the sources.
|
| I wonder if Red Hat is willing to play this game of whack a mole?
| And IMO, was it worth it?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-29 23:01 UTC)