5 ms·

Want to hear alternate view points. Why is Red Hat obligated to release source code. They had done this in the past, for decades. They are trying something else

Want to hear alternate view points. Why is Red Hat obligated to release source code. They had done this in the past, for decades. They are trying something else now. Why hold them on the hook for this? Practically all companies use Linux and open source. Barely any contributes or keeps their source code open. For example, no hosting company I know has their code open. Practically no SaaS has code open (sure, you can give me 10 examples, but I can you 1 million examples in the contrary).

izacus 3y ago
Because angry HNers who downvote you demand free (as in beer) software and are pissed that someone actually wants to pay their employees for Linux development.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  Didn't Red Hat manage to pay their employees for Linux development and make a profit prior to IBM acquiring them?
  - izacus 3y ago
    Yes, but at time the community didn't just resell their work at lower prices. Now the profiteers appeared and they're addressing that problem. Blaming IBM is a conspiracy theory that's more copium than anything else.
    - josephcsible 3y ago
      > at time the community didn't just resell their work at lower prices. That's because at the time, CentOS was still alive.
    - tm-guimaraes 3y ago
      CentOS existed before it was bought and shutdown. (There is something called CentOS Stream today, but it’s a completely different product with completely different purpose) All the “rebuilders” redhat is complaining are just CentOS folks continuing to do their thing after their name was bought. So this is almost as old as redhat. Not “a new treat”
Ecstatify 3y ago
https://youtu.be/kF5pyVUQBH8 https://youtu.be/kF5pyVUQBH8
- nullcipher 3y ago
  This says RHEL builds on top of linux. Isn't every SaaS out there built on linux? They are all obligated to now release their code? I don't get it.
Semaphor 3y ago
> Why is Red Hat obligated to release source code. Because the GPL requires them to do so for their users. They are circumventing this by making anyone who re-publishes the source (allowed by the GPL) ex-users.
- nullcipher 3y ago
  I see. But I thought RHEL is a distribution. The issue here is that they are making patches to software and keeping all the patches behind a paywall ? My understanding is that packaging source code can be any license, not needed to be GPL.
  - seba_dos1 3y ago
    That's not the issue. There's nothing wrong (neither legally nor philosophically) with sources being behind a paywall, as long as all their binaries are behind the same paywall too. You see many confused people talking about that around, but they're just that - confused. The real problem is that there's a threat of termination of your paid plan once you exercise your GPL freedoms, which is at best fishy. Technically you still have access to all your GPL freedoms, but the GPL states that there must not be any further restrictions, and this certainly feels like one.
shaan7 3y ago
To start with, I totally sympathize with Red Hat on this one. The question is not whether Red Hat deserves to do this, but whether the _LICENSE_ allows them to do so. > Why is Red Hat obligated to release source code They are not obligated to release source code to the public. But they _are_ obligated to put no restrictions whatsoever on redistribution (100% clone or not). From the GPL: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License." Red Hat is basically saying "We understand that the GPL allows you to redistribute our product as is. But, if you do, we will terminate our relationship with you.". IMO that is no different than a company saying "Yes, you have a statutory right for refunds within 30 days. However, if you exercise it, we will not sell you any products in the future.". That counts as a (indirect) restriction in my book.
- adastra22 3y ago
  Not just in your book. There is plenty of case law that reaches the same conclusion.
  - sanxiyn 3y ago
    Please cite the relevant case laws.
adastra22 3y ago
Because the terms of the GPL license prohibits added restrictions, therefore these new coercive retributive actions against code sharing (an explicit right of the user) is a violation of the GPL.

izacus 3y ago

Because angry HNers who downvote you demand free (as in beer) software and are pissed that someone actually wants to pay their employees for Linux development.

josephcsible 3y ago
Didn't Red Hat manage to pay their employees for Linux development and make a profit prior to IBM acquiring them?
- izacus 3y ago
  Yes, but at time the community didn't just resell their work at lower prices. Now the profiteers appeared and they're addressing that problem. Blaming IBM is a conspiracy theory that's more copium than anything else.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    > at time the community didn't just resell their work at lower prices. That's because at the time, CentOS was still alive.
  - tm-guimaraes 3y ago
    CentOS existed before it was bought and shutdown. (There is something called CentOS Stream today, but it’s a completely different product with completely different purpose) All the “rebuilders” redhat is complaining are just CentOS folks continuing to do their thing after their name was bought. So this is almost as old as redhat. Not “a new treat”

Ecstatify 3y ago

https://youtu.be/kF5pyVUQBH8 https://youtu.be/kF5pyVUQBH8

nullcipher 3y ago
This says RHEL builds on top of linux. Isn't every SaaS out there built on linux? They are all obligated to now release their code? I don't get it.

Semaphor 3y ago

> Why is Red Hat obligated to release source code. Because the GPL requires them to do so for their users. They are circumventing this by making anyone who re-publishes the source (allowed by the GPL) ex-users.

nullcipher 3y ago
I see. But I thought RHEL is a distribution. The issue here is that they are making patches to software and keeping all the patches behind a paywall ? My understanding is that packaging source code can be any license, not needed to be GPL.
- seba_dos1 3y ago
  That's not the issue. There's nothing wrong (neither legally nor philosophically) with sources being behind a paywall, as long as all their binaries are behind the same paywall too. You see many confused people talking about that around, but they're just that - confused. The real problem is that there's a threat of termination of your paid plan once you exercise your GPL freedoms, which is at best fishy. Technically you still have access to all your GPL freedoms, but the GPL states that there must not be any further restrictions, and this certainly feels like one.

shaan7 3y ago

To start with, I totally sympathize with Red Hat on this one. The question is not whether Red Hat deserves to do this, but whether the _LICENSE_ allows them to do so. > Why is Red Hat obligated to release source code They are not obligated to release source code to the public. But they _are_ obligated to put no restrictions whatsoever on redistribution (100% clone or not). From the GPL: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License." Red Hat is basically saying "We understand that the GPL allows you to redistribute our product as is. But, if you do, we will terminate our relationship with you.". IMO that is no different than a company saying "Yes, you have a statutory right for refunds within 30 days. However, if you exercise it, we will not sell you any products in the future.". That counts as a (indirect) restriction in my book.

adastra22 3y ago
Not just in your book. There is plenty of case law that reaches the same conclusion.
- sanxiyn 3y ago
  Please cite the relevant case laws.

adastra22 3y ago

Because the terms of the GPL license prohibits added restrictions, therefore these new coercive retributive actions against code sharing (an explicit right of the user) is a violation of the GPL.