undefined | Better HN

0 pointssmarx0072y ago0 comments

But they do make all of that source code available under CentOS Stream. GPL does not require an SLA for providing source code of all bugfixes and security patches free of charge in under 24h. Just embargoing security patches for 1-2 weeks from Stream would be a good enough move for RH to signal to enterprise customers that Rocky/Alma are not a drop-in gratis replacement for RHEL in production systems.

0 comments

geerlingguy2y ago

The GPL requires all source code be available including the scripts and glue code required to build the binary alongside the source. You can't pull a Stream and offer "most" of the source, but not the source required to rebuild the latest stable release. That's counter to the spirit and the letter of GPLv2.

Legally speaking, the contract vs copyright issue is the only ground Red Hat has to stand on here.

mst2y ago

The last time I recall a company doing the 'we will follow our GPL obligations and give you - specifically you, the recipients of the binaries from us - the source but if you exercise your right to redistribute don't expect to be able to renew your contract' thing I believe the eventual conclusion amongst the people who seriously knew what they were talking about* was 'this is obnoxious but legal.'

* I do not consider myself to be one of those people

smarx007OP2y ago

I think what RH did is ethically questionable but is a great development for the use of GPL in the enterprise (for releasing SW under GPL that would otherwise remain closed-source): there is now a path for respecting GPL freedoms (in a slightly round-about way) without necessarily making the product gratis.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse