I want to be clear on my bias here: I firmly believe that open source would not be a ‘thing’ if it weren’t for Red Hat. Linus Torvalds himself once said (albeit 10 years ago) that the shares he received from Red Hat before their IPO was ‘his only big Linux payout’. I don’t think anyone would disagree with the statement that Red Hat has had a major significant positive impact on Open Source across the world.

This morning I listened to an excellent podcast called “Ask Noah” where he interviewed Red Hat’s Mike McGrath who has been active on the linux subreddit and other social media. It seems that Mike has been involved in the decision to restrict Red Hat’s sources on git.centos.org:

    https://podcast.asknoahshow.com/343 (listen at ~20 mins)

It’s really worth a listen. Mike clearly lays out the work that Red Hat (I was surprised to find out that it is NOT the Rebuilders) does to debrand the Red Hat sources, why they’re pulling that back on those unbranded sources, and that they understand the ramifications of doing so. It’s also interesting that Mike is of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with doing a Rebuild, and he defends them by stating “that’s the cost of doing business”. Noah and Mike go into many of the nuances of the decision and again, it’s really worth listening to. Mike also talks about “bad faith” when dealing with the Rebuilders at 40:30, which I think explains Red Hat’s decision. I got the distinct feeling he’s bound by some ethical code so he won’t/can’t say too much though.

There’s also this discussion about Rocky Linux securing a contract with NASA:

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36417968

that had a lot of internal discussion at my company this week, which given what’s just happened may shed some more light on Red Hat’s decision.


There are always two sides to every story but in this case there are three sides to this story.

On one side, you have Red Hat, a long time champion of open source software, that has poured billions of dollars into open source development, and which has 1000s of employees who not only on ‘company’ time but in their own time manage, develop, contribute, and create open source code. They have funded countless successful and unsuccessful projects that we all use.

Against Red Hat are two largely distinct groups. The first is the Rebuilders themselves, who Red Hat has claimed ‘don’t offer anything of value back to the community’. This is not meant to be a statement on the usefulness of the rebuilds (Rocky, Alma, Oracle, etc.) but rather a very directed statement on whether or not the rebuilders are providing bug report, feedback, and contributions to the packages that Red Hat has included in RHEL.

The second group, which stands somewhat behind the Rebuilders, are the Rebuild users. One could argue that the users are caught in the middle of Red Hat and the Rebuilders, however, I think it is better to look at them as being an equal ‘side’ in this discussion.

The Rebuild users are in a very unfortunate position: they’re about to lose access to a free product that they’ve come to depend on. They are, as expected, unhappy about Red Hat’s decision to stop providing access to RHEL sources. My next statement is callous, and I expect it to be read as such: You get what you paid for. That is not meant to indicate anyone is cheap, it’s just that you shouldn’t have expectations when you are using something for free.

Here’s the interesting part for me. As far as I can see, none of the users are jumping to the Rebuilder’s defence of Red Hat’s accusation that the Rebuilders provide nothing back to the community. And, as far as I can tell across various social media and news platforms’ comments sections, largely the user community AGREES with Red Hat’s position. Informed users – not all users – are using a RHEL Rebuild knowing that there is no benefit in doing so for the community.

I have yet to read a reply from the Rebuilders where they categorically deny that this is the case. And to me, that’s glaring and damning of the Rebuilders’ position. Even the ‘defenders’ (for lack of a better word) of the Rebuilders have yet to provide a response.

  • livingcoder@lemmy.austinwadeheller.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What’s the harm in doing a rebuild? Serious question. I simply don’t understand where the harm comes from. I would appreciate any insight. Thanks.

    Edit: I find the answer to my question at the end of this productive conversation.

    • randomguy2323@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It seems that he is bother by how they rebuild it and then do not add or contribute any code and then sell support to the customer on REHL work which in my opinion its not okay and I will agree with RedHat.

      • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would say its wrong/unethical and could make an argument that it undermines the spirit of the FOSS community in general. I think the rebuilders/mimics are exploiting the GPL in a “race to the bottom” situation where they’re just going to copy that code and sell it for cheaper and cheaper. It’s like a shitty middle man who’s only value proposition undermines a stalwart of the open source community.

        All that does for the FOSS community is harm. If a company, who has seriously been a champion (even with all their flaws) of FOSS, can’t do business in this space because of this, we ALL lose out.

        If you want to rebuild and provide a free copy of Redhat where you’ve added literally nothing of value, go for it. But when you start outbidding Redhat on contracts because you are taking their hard work for free? That’s absolutely shitty and wrong. No one should stand for that even if they “technically” didn’t violate the GPL.

        I honestly don’t blame Redhat for this and the angst being thrown their way misses the fact that these rebuilders are being super shitty.

        • Reliant1087@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Irrespective of whether the rebuilders are shitty or not, RH is clearly trying to restrict GPL and expecting to get away with it because they can pay more for lawyers. If they believe that other people using their source is making money unfairly, change the licensing. You don’t get to keep GPL so that you get all the benefits, contributions and goodwill from the community for free and at the same time claim that people cannot excercise their GPL rights. They’re free to make everything they build by themselves closed source.

          • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I guess we’ll see if the GPL has been violated. I actually think, if it hasn’t been violated, it sets a weird precedence.

            This is a situation with sides and two of them are being shitty. The third side, the users, are getting caught in the middle.

            • Reliant1087@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m perfect happy with having a seperate licensing so that software they build is open source but has paid commercial licence. I just find this current move crappy.

    • someLinuxDude@reddthat.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t think there is anyone arguing that a Rebuild by itself is a problem. Given Mike’s comments in the podcast linked above, the problem is when one of those (or many of those) Rebuilders competed directly against Red Hat for a contract.

      From the general feeling I get from reading many threads on this issue, the general consensus is that the community agrees that, specifically, this behavior by the Rebuilders is wrong.

      • livingcoder@lemmy.austinwadeheller.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oh, I see. But what do you think of this translation:

        “Company Foo makes TVs and is always working to make them better. They give them out for free with the hopes of making money installing them and providing guidance on how to use them, but someone starts Company Bar and installs them for cheaper and starts taking on installation jobs.”

        Is this wrong? Isn’t this just the definition of an open market? Please let me know if I’m missing some kind of context. I hope that we can continue to discuss this respectfully.

        I should say that I want any open source project with the motivation to write good software to have all of the funding they need to make that happen. I just don’t see how it can be justified in this instance when compared to any other market.

        • someLinuxDude@reddthat.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is no problem with your scenario, and it’s spot on to the issue that Red Hat has raised.

          However, the piece you’re missing is that the TVs come from Foo. They don’t have to give company Bar TVs to install. If company Bar doesn’t have TVs then what should they do? They have some choices: work with Foo or develop their own TV.

          • I don’t see how Company Foo can dictate that all other entities (customers, for example) can receive a free TV on their doorstep (since the code is open source) except for Company Bar. To make it map better to the situation, Company Bar would receive a shipment of free TVs, rebrand them, ship them out to customers, and install them.

            “They don’t have to give Company Bar TVs to install.” So the GPL doesn’t require that Company Foo permit free access to the TVs? They could decide to not give out their TVs to anyone?

            Also, what if I wanted to get my cousin a free TV but charge him a few bucks to install it? Is this only a problem at scale?

            • someLinuxDude@reddthat.comOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Here’s where your analogy falls apart. The TV isn’t being shipped to everyone. It’s being shipped (“rebuilt”) by Bar, and then installed by them. They’re free to do that but Foo is under no obligation to help them do it.

              • livingcoder@lemmy.austinwadeheller.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Within the analogy (as it compares to Redhat and the Rebuilders), how is Foo helping Bar? Isn’t Foo simply leaving the TVs outside the factory for people to come and pickup? A bunch of trucks branded “Bar” come by, pick some of them up, rebrand them, and take jobs to install them, jobs that Foo thought they were going to get? Isn’t Foo now requiring individual people to walk through a lockable door, sign their name, verify that they don’t work for Bar, and grab a TV instead of just leaving them outside in a pile?

                • someLinuxDude@reddthat.comOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, that kind of makes sense, but Foo was leaving the TVs outside because they thought that was the most expedient thing to do. It takes effort to move them outside, and Foo doesn’t want to do that anymore. So now Foo, as you point out, has moved the TVs inside where only paying customers can get them.

                  • livingcoder@lemmy.austinwadeheller.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    And the GPL is okay with that? Can every repo under GPL put up a paywall?

                    Google: “The GNU General Public License (GNU, GPL, or GPL) is a free software license originally written by Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, which guarantees that users are free to use, share, and modify the software without paying anyone for it.”