Red Hat strikes a crushing blow against RHEL downstreams
www.theregister.com
external-link
From now on, only CentOS Stream's source code is available to all

A superficially modest blog post from a senior Hatter announces that going forward, the company will only publish the source code of its CentOS Stream product to the world. In other words, only paying customers will be able to obtain the source code to Red Hat Enterprise Linux… And under the terms of their contracts with the Hat, that means that they can’t publish it.

AFAIK, the source is still available with a free Developer License from Red Hat. Still annoying AF, though.

That sounds like a “restriction” on distribution of GPLv3 licensed code

Yeah, it kinda does. Idk what they’re thinking, lol

13zero
link
fedilink
31Y

What stops one person with a free account from mirroring the source?

quaddo
link
fedilink
7
edit-2
1Y

From TFA:

Some commentators are pointing out that it’s possible to sign up for a free Red Hat Developer account, and obtain the source code legitimately that way. This is perfectly true, but the problem is that the license agreement that you have to sign to get that account prevents you from redistributing the software.

So although the downstream distros could still get hold of the software source code, they can’t actually use it. In principle, if they make substantial modifications, they can share those, but the whole raison d’être of RHEL-compatible distros is to avoid major changes and so retain “bug-for-bug compatibility.”

Of course, they could take a “publish and be damned” attitude and do it anyway. At best, the likely result is immediate cancellation of their subscription and account. That could work but will result in a cat-and-mouse game: downstream distributors continually opening new free developer accounts, and the Hat potentially retaliating by blueprinting downloads and stomping on violators’ accounts. It would not be a sustainable model.

At worst, though, they could face potentially getting sued into oblivion.

ETA the full context.

13zero
link
fedilink
21Y

Got it.

I don’t see how that could comply with the terms of the GPL.

Jeena
link
fedilink
11Y

I don’t think all the code there is GPL. A lot of it is MIT, BSD, Apache, etc.

How are those licenses not in violation of GPLv3, which explicitly prohibits all forms of “restriction” on redistribution?

Idk, I don’t think they’re trying to kill downstreams. IMHO, they’re just cleaning things up. Why should the RHEL source be in the CentOS repos?

Create a post

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

  • 1 user online
  • 56 users / day
  • 244 users / week
  • 567 users / month
  • 2.51K users / 6 months
  • 1 subscriber
  • 3.16K Posts
  • 65.7K Comments
  • Modlog