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

  • 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.