Rocky Linux is an open enterprise Operating System designed to be 100% bug-for-bug compatible with Enterprise Linux.

The two ways they have for getting source code are kind of funny and easy, and kind of makes fun of RHEL in pulling this maneuver, getting so much community backlash and ultimately having so little effect other than to negatively impact future business. But will they go further to violate the GPL? Or concede defeat? Say what you want, but to cut off paying customers if they share source code which is their right under the GPL is a really bad move that exposes the character of those running the company.

  • cujo@sh.itjust.works
    01·
    1 year ago

    I’ll see if I can’t dig it up.

    Judging on their own blog post, a lot of this decision making wasn’t because of the people using rebuilders because they “don’t need support,” which was never really the goal IMO. CentOS seemed, to me at least, to fill the gap of “people who want to use RHEL but can’t or don’t need to afford the price tag; for hobbyists and learners.” And RHEL is reporting that their research shows the majority of people using rebuilders right now are not those groups of people, they’re professional enterprise environments who are trying to avoid RHEL’s fees.

    To me, if you are a business who wants a Linux server but doesn’t want to pay RHEL’s price tag… Use something else. There’s Ubuntu Server, Fedora Server, Debian, and dozens more distros that cater to enterprise usage for absolutely free. RHEL does not. From what I can tell, the rebuilders are not adding any kind of value to the situation. And, again, RHEL’s own word on the situation seems to be “the sources are still there, we just won’t do your job for you anymore.”

    EDIT to add: I am not against the rebuilders doing their thing. I am actually for it. But right now, everything I am seeing on the practical side of things is this: RHEL used to put in a lot of work making the rebuilders’ job easier. They don’t seem to want to artificially increase the difficulty of rebuilding RHEL sources, just to stop actively spending money making it easier when that work doesn’t return any money for the effort. Which is… Totally fair.

    • redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.com
      1·
      1 year ago

      Yes, that’s totally fair, but a lot of people in the open source world, especially individual contributor, will only support an open-source product based on how many goodwill the backing company provides. Red Hat, before the IBM acquisition, is on the top of the list due to their enormous goodwill towards the open source community. Their willingness to support CentOS, which essentially making RHEL free and cutting into Red Hat’s revenue, created a lot of respect among Linux supporters, which in turns promoted usage of CentOS and RHEL and provides integration for CentOS/RHEL on their own open source projects. Red Hat became this big was partially due to the support and promotion from the Linux enthusiasts advocating their use in their companies.

      The recent moves understandably made those people feel betrayed by Red Hat. Sure it’s within Red Hat’s right to do so, but in doing so, they burn a lot of goodwill and trust from their open source community.

      • cujo@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        1 year ago

        I have since changed my overall view on this topic as others brought up their license’s verbiage that seems to be designed to threaten people into not rebuilding their source lest they lose access to their rightfully paid for license, but I’ll comment on this specific point.

        Per RHEL, their metrics show that this:

        Red Hat became this big was partially due to the support and promotion from the Linux enthusiasts advocating their use in their companies.

        was a nice idea, but not a reality for them. They didn’t see that turn around the way hobbyist and enthusiasts claim they did. Again, I’m not in support of all the decisions RHEL is making in regards to this, and I’m not saying we should blindly take their word for it. But they have addressed this particular point in saying “Yeah, we kinda thought that would happen too, but it didn’t.”

        But that’s all kind of a moot point now, since their ToS is kind of damning.

    • vacuumflower@vlemmy.net
      1·
      1 year ago

      From what I can tell, the rebuilders are not adding any kind of value to the situation.

      They are adding popularity. Enterprise is slow to change in some ways, but I can totally see the trend of moving to Debian. RH seems to have forgotten their own history and how they’ve started with one Red Hat Linux, with paid support for those who wanted it, and that’s what gave them the popularity to be profitable.

      They don’t seem to want to artificially increase the difficulty of rebuilding RHEL sources, just to stop actively spending money making it easier when that work doesn’t return any money for the effort. Which is… Totally fair.

      They are, in fact, going to reduce their revenue. Which is the main criterion for a business, no?

      I mean, just like humans wither and die with time, so do companies.