[chasil]

I just saw that.

"Using the UBI image, it is easily possible to obtain Red Hat sources reliably and unencumbered... Another method... is pay-per-use public cloud instances. With this, anyone can spin up RHEL images in the cloud and thus obtain the source code for all packages and errata."

[madars]

I wonder how stable the cloud path is ... can RedHat have cloud vendors "voluntarily agree" to not spin up VMs for rebuilders? (Kinda like how subscribers "agree" that distributing GPL'd sources could put their subscription renewal in jeopardy.)

[bakugo]

>an RedHat have cloud vendors "voluntarily agree" to not spin up VMs for rebuilders?

I mean, maybe, but does it matter? You only need one person with access to the code to distribute it to everyone else, and the identity of that one person doesn't have to be public, so I really don't see how Red Hat could ever hope to stop it.

[davisr]

Red Hat's Mike McGrath explains [1]:

> That confusion manifested as accusations about us going closed-source and about alleged GPL violations. There is CentOS Stream the binary deliverable, and CentOS Stream the source repository. The CentOS Stream gitlab source is where we build RHEL releases, in the open for all to see. To call RHEL “closed source” is categorically untrue and inaccurate. CentOS Stream moves faster than RHEL, so it might not be on HEAD, but the code is there. If you can’t find it, it’s a bug – please let us know.

[1]: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-sour...

He goes on [2]:

> Anyone is allowed to create an account, get GPL'ed code and redistribute that code as much as they want according to the license. But they don't actually want the code because as I've said over and over, its not about the code (Free as in freedom). The code is out there (as proven by the fact that none of these rebuilders stopped nor will they stop)

[2]: https://teddit.net/r/linux/comments/14l2t86/im_done_with_red...

PS: How many people do you see linking to the actual Red Hat posts? I don't see many, which is why I think many comments on these threads are not made with honest intentions. The misinformation is rampant.

[tourmalinetaco]

While it’s important to get both sides, RH’s actions are the exact opposite of what he’s saying there. And your belief that this somehow absolves them and that their anti-FLOSS actions are “misinformation” is incredibly disingenuous.

[davisr]

What actions? What anti-FLOSS? They are complying fully with the terms of all licenses of RHEL and CentOS Software. Don't believe me? Here is what Fedora says about it [1]. It's no problem for them. "There is no change in Fedora or with anything related to Fedora."

  > 3) So what happened?
  > 
  > - CentOS Engineers will not be producing that git 
  > repo of exploded SRPMs anymore because there is 
  > no need for them in CentOS project.
  > 
  > - Red Hat recommends to take RHEL sources from 
  > CentOS Stream repositories because that is the 
  > actual source from which RHEL packages are built 
  > by RHEL Engineers.
  > 
  > Can you still get access to SRPMs and create 
  > exploded sources repo - Yes. But there is no 
  > practical reason for Red Hat or for CentOS 
  > Project to maintain such a service.
  > 
  > There is no change in Fedora or with anything 
  > related to Fedora.
  > 
  > -- 
  > Aleksandra Fedorova,
  > member of Fedora Council
  > RHEL/CentOS Strem CI Engineer

[1]: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]...

[oynqr]

It's malicious compliance. They might as well say that since their code is somewhere in Pi, it's all open source.