Red Hat’s commitment to open source: A response to the git.centos.org changes
Red Hat’s commitment to open source: A response to the git.centos.org changes
More about Red Hat's decision to make CentOS Stream the primary repository for RHEL sources.
Some mix of wrong and right, the exact proportions of which I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.
Lots of words to say:
- We do what we are legally allowed to do.
- We don’t care for the spirit of open source (anymore).
- Pay up or fuck off!
I don't think anyone's arguing that Red Hat isn't in the right, legally, to do what they did (anymore). At this point, I think Redhat users are just tired of being jerked around. We're not children, most of us in the industry have been around a while and have seen this same story play out over and over again. We can see the writing on the wall and they've destroyed the trust of their community so, a long winded blog post defending their decision, arguing that they are within their rights to do it is largely irrelevant at this point. They've lost the narrative and the industry (us) will respond by gradually finding ways either away from or around Red Hat and associated projects. Soon, the only people left using it will be the same people who use other irrelevant and dated software, government.
I don’t think anyone’s arguing that Red Hat isn’t in the right, legally, to do what they did (anymore).
I am. It's there in the GPL text in black and white. Red Hat does not have any right to place restrictions on the distribution of derivative works that they do not own the original copyright for. Threatening to terminate a service agreement is a restriction.
All of the projects that own FOSS code that Red Hat uses in RHEL could legitimately revoke Red Hat's license to use that software on the grounds that they have violated the licensing terms required by the GPL.
I am. It’s there in the GPL text in black and white. Red Hat does not have any right to place restrictions on the distribution of derivative works that they do not own the original copyright for. Threatening to terminate a service agreement is a restriction.
From what I understand, these restrictions only apply to if you have been provided the software. Red Hat is under no legal obligation to supply you with their software, nor to continue doing so if you violate their terms.
I agree this makes them total scumbags, but as far as I understand the GPL they are not breaking the law.
Red Hat died the day IBM bought them. All that garbage about "leaving Red Hat alone" was of course total nonsense. IBM is doing what it does best -- squeeze its existing customer base for short term gains. This won't be the last thing Red Hat does that makes people annoyed.
There is a reason some of us chose to support Debian and its model of allowing downstream companies like Ubuntu (Canonical) to give back up to the open source father. And this is it. We dont need to compromise here. We already have a system that works perfectly and provides a choice for what suits you. If you are an enterprise then try Ubuntu instead of RHEL. If you are a home user you dont need enterprise support and can help us log bug reports and create the next version of Trixie. We need more testers and we have fought this long fight and proven we wont give up. What other proof do you need?
I got a feeling that the kind of people that use Rocky or Alma linux would have a heart attack dealing with snap on ubuntu. Maybe they're better off switching to Debian LTS instead.
As an inexperienced user, I can tell you that Debian is way harder to use than most people think. Out of the box, the distro is pretty bare ones. I'm having a blast using an Arch based distro, but on Debian I had to do everything manually. Stable is freaking old, and Unstable has lots of limitations, Docker for example is a true pain.
Ubuntu, Mint, Zorin, POP OS, are way better than Debian for users like me.
More recently, we have determined that there isn’t value in having a downstream rebuilder.
Alright, well, there it is in plain English. They're killing downstream clones like Rocky, Alma, etc.
I have to wonder how this is going to affect software which officially only supports (insert RHEL clone here). I use DaVinci Resolve for work every day, historically they've only supported CentOS, and just recently they started supporting Rocky as well. VFX isn't my wheelhouse, but I know the situation is basically the same for those programs as well.
At least they aren't pretending to be the good guys anymore.
He's taliking like RHEL is the product to be monetized. I always thought the model was: the software is free - pay us for professional, enterprise-level support.
The problem is: The larger the usage of RHEL inside a company the more likely they do not need the support anymore, because they can have your own department do it instead. So those companies don't pay for bug fixes or general Linux development, which is a problem. If you want a healthy Linux ecosystem large companies need to pay the maintainers! I don't care if they do it through Redhat or directly.
Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source, and one that has the potential to revert open source back into a hobbyist- and hackers-only activity.
Hacker hoodies activate.
I asked ChatGPT to do that exercise for me:
I find it deeply troubling to witness the erosion of true open source values within Red Hat, as outlined in the recent blog post by Mike McGrath. While he attempts to defend the company's actions, it is clear that the fundamental principles of software freedom are being undermined.
Firstly, McGrath's claims about Red Hat's commitment to open source development are misleading. Mere code contributions upstream are not sufficient to embody the spirit of the free software movement. True dedication to freedom means liberating users by ensuring that the software they use respects their rights to study, modify, and share it. Unfortunately, Red Hat's actions fall short of this ideal.
The emphasis on backporting patches and maintaining an operating system for extended periods is not inherently incompatible with open source values. However, it is the context in which these activities occur that matters. Red Hat's increasing restrictions on downstream rebuilders and its reluctance to facilitate their efforts is a disservice to the community. By limiting the ability to freely modify and redistribute the software, Red Hat is erecting barriers that hinder innovation and impede the spirit of cooperation that open source should foster.
Furthermore, the dismissal of rebuilders as mere profit-seeking entities is a distortion of reality. These rebuilders play a crucial role in expanding the reach and accessibility of open source software. By disregarding their contributions, Red Hat is failing to recognize the diverse needs of users and the benefits that can arise from a vibrant ecosystem of downstream distributions.
The introduction of CentOS Stream as a replacement for CentOS raises concerns about the viability of a truly community-driven project. While Red Hat claims that the source code remains open, the increased control exerted by the company raises questions about the autonomy and independence of the project. This shift undermines the trust and collaboration that formed the foundation of CentOS and threatens to marginalize the very community that helped build it.
I implore Red Hat to reconsider its stance and recommit to the principles that once defined the company. Open source is not simply about code contributions; it is about empowering users and fostering a community of collaboration, transparency, and shared knowledge. Red Hat must embrace these values fully, or risk betraying the very essence of the open source movement it once championed. Only by upholding software freedom can we ensure a future where technology serves the best interests of all.