|
|
|
|
|
|
by bonzini
1079 days ago
|
|
|
No, that's not being hostile towards open source. It's being indifferent towards people who want all your beer to be free. Red Hat is contributing upstream of RHEL in three different ways (actual upstream, Fedora, CentOS Stream). Asking for even more is nothing but entitlement. > there is a correlation here and it's not just a coincidence. There is obviously a time correlation, but whether it's a coincidence or not you cannot know. And the correlation becomes a lot more murky if you consider that Red Hae was allegedly causing lock-in or being hostile towards open source when Lennart started systemd (and for multiple other episodes in the systemd saga), when they stopped distributing the broken out patches of the RHEL kernel, when they acqui-hired CentOS, etc. And also people gave Red Hat 3 years of life when IBM announced the acquisition. Perhaps y'all need to tune your crystal ball... |
|
|
I heard that a lot of RHEL packages are actually built from Fedora repos, which are maintained by voluntary contributors. Did Red Hat ask those maintainers if they are okay with providing the source for their RPMs behind a paywall? They didn't, and some Fedora maintainers even orphaned their packages as result of this change.
Like someone said, when big companies use free software and give nothing back, business as usual, but when it's the other way around suddenly it's unbelievable that people are taking products for free and not giving a single cent back to those same companies that exploit FLOSS!
I don't understand how can someone back Red Hat and find it totally okay that a company that was built on open source and essentially became what it is today because of the open source community that it created, is now giving a huge middle finger to that same community that made them what they are today.