An exceptionally well explained rant that I find myself in total agreement with.

  • underisk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    … the freedom to study, change, and redistribute the software you use.

    They are specifically and explicitly trying to limit your freedom with regards to redistribution by making it a violation of their EULA to do so.

    • UrbenLegend@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      But the code is also available in CentOS Stream, which is basically the “git master” of RHEL, and that you can freely redistribute.

      • underisk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        The people using RHEL aren’t using CentOS Stream, and they aren’t able to redistribute the actual software they are actively using. I don’t know how to state this any clearer.

        • UrbenLegend@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your logic would apply if they were entirely separate pieces of software, but RHEL is just essentially snapshots of CentOS Stream.

          • underisk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Those snapshots are not CentOS Stream. You are not running CentOS Stream, in the state in which it is provided, when you run a RHEL release. They arent entirely separate, but that’s exaggerating the claim and not what I’m arguing. The people who are using RHEL as provided are not able to redistribute the thing which they are using.

            • UrbenLegend@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Whether the GPL says the redistributed code has to be a bug-for-bug compatible copy of RHEL is up for lawyers to decide. In my mind, saying “I am not running Software Foobar, I am running Software Foobar released a few months ago” seems like a silly distinction in this case, especially when talking about the health of FOSS.

              • underisk@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Once again, their adherence to the letter of the GPL is certainly up for debate, I said as much at the start.

                Their violation of its intent, however, is not. They are putting up roadblocks, however trivial or insignificant you seem to believe they are, to limit your freedom in redistributing they code they are providing. Period. This controversy would not exist if they weren’t.