[beckler]

For those who are out of the loop, like I was, here is how I'm understanding this...

"CentOS" tracked behind RHEL, and is considered more stable? Regardless, CentOS 7 is the last supported major version, and it's reaching EOL soon and will not be maintained. This sounds like a push to get those who use CentOS (free) to move to RHEL (paid) to stay in the long-cycle ecosystem.

"CentOS Stream" is a flavor that tracks ahead of RHEL, is less stable, and is really meant for those who develop on RHEL.

Since the original CentOS is no longer supported, you had new flavors come up (specifically Rocky Linux and Alma Linux) designed to fill the void to track behind RHEL.

However, it appears they rely on the open-source RHEL for their builds. It sounds like this is going away now, and the only open-source linux RedHat is gonna publish freely is CentOS Stream.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or missed something!

[raincom]

Backports are important for long term support. Say, you have some-pkg-1.2.5-83.el9.x86_64, CentOS Stream will have some-pkg-2.10.32-3.el9.x86_64 (with extra features, enhancments, security fixes), while customers want just CVEs to be back ported to some-pkg-1.2.x

This creates problems for long term support, as it requires more resources, who understand the code base for some-pkg in order to apply selective fixes. Right now, if one knows how to build rpms and how to integrate them is enough to become a clone of downstream RHEL.

I think, only Oracle can pull off this feat, as they can put more people to work to solve this problems. 1:1 compatibility becomes hard, as 1000+ packages need to be taken care of.

[jacooper]

Old centOS is just a RHEL clone. The only supported version is CentOS 7, which is clone of RHEL 7

[tinus_hn]

Isn’t it like all these alternative distributions have to do is buy one license for RHEL and get the sources RedHat uses?

[lproven]

In practice, yes.

In theory, no, because the license strictly prohibits this. They'd get sued into oblivion or their first release.

[tinus_hn]

Is this statement about the license fact or theory? If you deliver GPL software you have to release everything for redistribution.

[lproven]

I covered my take on the situation at length, here:

https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/23/red_hat_centos_move/

It has been cited by, among others, Bradley Kuhn of the Software Freedom Conservancy, which is probably some of the highest praise I've received in my career to date.

I suggest reading that and then if you have further points or questions I will be happy to try to address them.

[effie]

You wrote

> customers [...] are under the terms of a contract, which overrides the GPL license of the code itself

Do you have a source for this claim? Why would the contract be legally stronger than the license?

GPL prohibits further restrictions on rights of the code recipient. Contractual terms are sometimes found unlawful/invalid by courts. I guess this question can really be resolved only by a court.

[lproven]

I was merely reporting what multiple others have said.

If you wish to falsify my summary, then please do. I will be happy to write a correction. I could well have this wrong, yes.

If you feel this is wrong, then by all means, please provide some links and some evidence that it isn't the case.

IANAL and I do not play one on line. I just report. That is what reporters do.