[hencoappel]

This is a weird take. Nothing Oracle did was wrong. RedHat's model can be used by anyone, why shouldn't another company make use of the source's? It's the risk of the model RedHat has gone for and also RedHat has added clauses to they're terms preventing resharing of sources which is against GPL.

[tpush]

Red Hat's EULA does not violate the GPL and what Oracle does is obviously wrong, it's parasitic and in the long term will kill RHEL (and thus also Oracle's version).

[pjmlp]

Big corps don't care one second about what HN thinks.

It is business as usual with any of them.

[JonChesterfield]

The violation is that the red hat distro is a derived work of GPL code whose source is not available.

[tpush]

Red Hat supplies the source to everyone their distributing the binaries to, no violation here.

[JonChesterfield]

Ah I see. I don't have the binaries so I can't have the source either. That's the part I was missing. Cheers

[fredski42]

You can have the sources. Centos Stream.

[paulryanrogers]

Yet it's not bug for bug compatible because it's now upstream of RHEL. For things like drivers you want compatibility

[housemusicfan]

I don't think you understand how the GPL works. Merely creating a derived work does not mean you must make source available publicly (a la AGPL).

[dzsekijo]

That's true but you must give the source to your customer and they should be free to redistribute.

[housemusicfan]

This is correct, and the customer has full rights to redistribute. But the original customer may be limited to paying Red Hat customers only and still remain in full compliance.

[fredski42]

And they are! However Red Hat is then free to terminate their business relation with you.