[narnianal]

Just because the architecture is free doesn't mean IBM won't make a shitload of money from the future of this processor. There are a lot of other ways than licensing. RHEL is free since forever and still it's the biggest income source for Red Hat afaik.

[justinjlynn]

Um, yes, that's basically what I said, or rather, what I meant to say - if it wasn't clear.

[scandox]

It was clear

[solarkraft]

Just longer

[throwaway8941]

RHEL is free? I am missing something? I believe it's free only for developers and for development purposes.

Even the desktop "self-supported" version was something like $90 last time I checked.

CentOS/Scientific Linux is not RHEL.

[narnianal]

The subscription is not free of charge, the software is free of charge. If you buy a subscription and don't extend it or copy my filesystem you can use it without problems. You just won't receive official updates or official support.

[jdright]

Free as in Open Source.

[CrLf]

However, it's important to note that although the sources for RHEL packages are available as open-source, that still doesn't make CentOS an exact replica of RHEL, and therefore doesn't make RHEL itself "free".

RHEL 8 was released almost 4 months ago and there's no CentOS 8 yet. Mainly because taking the "free" RHEL sources and rebuild them isn't a simple case of removing logos and other "non-free" material. The build process itself (the sequence in which packages must be built so that all of them build successfully and with equivalent functionality to RHEL) is a major piece of what makes RHEL, RHEL, and that isn't free (or even publicly available).

[bjornjaja]

Free as in Freedom to download CentOS

[narnianal]

no really free as in free beer