I was trying to stay out of this thread, but the reply was complete and
utter nonsense...
On 25/07/2023 01:24, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 2023-07-24 13:47, frank saporito wrote:
Let me know if you disagree with any of these statements:
1. Red Hat is no longer posting source code to git.centos.org.
Correct. Red Hat used to publish a de-branded subset of RHEL source
code there, and they've discontinued that process. The current code for
RHEL is now published to the CentOS Stream repos.
2. Red Hat will release source code to partners and customers via the
Red Hat Customer Portal. (ref: Red Hat announcement)
Also correct. This is the only channel through which Red Hat ever
posted complete code for RHEL. It hasn't been changed.
Nonsense. For years Red Hat freely published the complete RHEL SRPMs to
their public ftp server. It *has* changed, a number of times over the
years as Red Hat increasingly seek to make it harder for others to
exercise their GPL rights.
3. Per Red Hat EULA, customers can not freely distribute the source
code. (ref: Red Hat EULA)
It's a little more complex than that, but probably close enough for now.
It's not complex at all. The GPL absolutely allows recipients to freely
redistribute the RHEL sources. Red Hat seek to prevent their customers
from exercising their rights under the GPL by imposing agreements that
allow them to terminate their contract and/or take legal action if their
customers choose to exercise their GPL rights.
Lets be very clear what Red Hat are doing (and to the best of my
knowledge have always done).
4. Red Hat's policy decision has made it difficult (maybe impossible)
for "clone" distributions to continue existing. (ref: Google "red hat
source code")
This is the point at which I think we start to wade out into the
territory of myth. It has never been possible to create a clone of RHEL
from the code that Red Hat published.
Of course it has. CentOS did it for years, and so did Scientific Linux
and others. The GPL *requires* Red Hat to publish the full sources
including "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of
the executable."
If it is not possible to create a clone, then Red Hat are not in
compliance with the GPL.
First, because Red Hat doesn't
publish the information that would be required to create reproducible
builds.
Yes they do - it's all in the SRPMs. I will concede that these need to
be built in the correct order and thus within the correct buildroot (the
skill that CentOS and others brought), but the information required "to
control compilation and installation of the executable" is all there.
But more importantly, because RHEL has one life cycle per minor
release, and distributions built from the old git.centos.org
repositories had *at best* one life cycle per major release.
CentOS Stream also has one life cycle per major release, and conforms to
the interface compatibility guide for the matching RHEL major release.
Distributions derived from CentOS Stream can have either lifecycles per
minor release *or* one lifecycle per major release. Unlike the old
source publication process, they can have continuous or overlapping life
cycles.
Yes, this involves more steps than the old process. The next natural
question is whether the additional work is justified by the improvement
in the outcome. And from my point of view, that is a very easy "yes".
I understand that it's confusing, but CentOS was never a substitute for
RHEL, and never provided the benefits of RHEL's model. It is not the
"free RHEL" that many users tend to think it was:
https://fosstodon.org/@gordonmessmer/110648143030974242
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf_EkU3x2G0
... and conversely, CentOS Stream is a much better stable LTS for
self-supported systems than you might believe:
https://medium.com/@gordon.messmer/in-favor-of-centos-stream-e5a8a43bdcf8
5. Red Hat's policy change contradicts the GPL's spirit.
As you acknowledge, that's a subjective question. I would say "no."
Seriously? You are the only person here who thinks that.
The GPL grants the rights to redistribute sources. It goes further, it
specifically states:
" To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights."
Red Hat's terms specifically contradict that and specifically prohibit:
"using Subscription Services in connection with any redistribution of
Software"
in section 1.2 (g) (d) of their terms (below), considering it a
"material breach of the Agreement" (IANAL, but that sounds like legal
speak):
https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Appendix-1-Global-English-20230620.pdf
Now you may consider the above subjective, but in doing so you lose all
credibility on this list.
I understand the above has yet to be tested in a court of law, but there
is no doubt it does not comply with any reasonable interpretation of the
intent of the GPL.
Further, there can be no doubt that Red Hat fully understands this too.
Red Hat's own definition of Open Source can be found on their website:
https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/open-source/what-is-open-source
"Open source is a term that originally referred to open source software
(OSS). Open source software is code that is designed to be publicly
accessible—anyone can see, modify, and distribute the code as they see fit."
yet Red Hat's own terms explicitly seek to prevent this. And you. Gordon
Messmer, think this is not contradictory?
I think the entire history of the free-as-in-speech vs free-as-in-beer
clarification is proof that we wanted to ensure the right to improve
software if you didn't like its limitations, not the right to give away
software if you didn't like its price.
But I also think it's important to acknowledge that the thing that
rebuilders are asking for (the RPM source repositories) aren't GPL
licensed, they're MIT licensed, which makes the question something of a
non-sequitur.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
