[happymellon]

It seems pretty mad. Apparently Redhat doing all of their work as GPL'ed OpenSource and upstreaming everything so that everyone benefits, and anyone can take the software and build their own, sell it, etc, isn't good enough.

Is literally the only thing that would make people happy is to give away RHEL for free for people to run their production servers on?

[geerlingguy]

Part of the open source social contract is downstreaming too. You can't just take, promise to give back, and then hoard what you've built.

[happymellon]

There is no hording though.

What changes have they made to RHEL that isn't available?

[mackca]

downstreaming ? How is the open source social contract anymore than making source code available?

[geerlingguy]

That's what I mean. Not putting up a EULA dam. They don't have to build CentOS or assist anyone, but they can't block the code from flowing downhill.

[mackca]

According to Red Hat the source of RHEL is publicly available on CentOS Stream Gitlab, without a EULA.

[bubblethink]

It's the upstream source, not the source used to build RHEL. RHEL is downstream of CentOS stream. Much like linux kernel's source is available, it does not help you much.

[mackca]

According to Red Hat it is. If you don't believe them you can get a Developer subscription to get a RHEL ISO to compare with a CentOS Stream ISO. I imagine a lot of people, myself included, would be interested in the analysis of that.

[worthless-trash]

However, it is "exactly" that code, isnt it.. thats been my understanding.