@@MaxUgly I have heard some good things about Suse. Whats your exp ? I heard there are some teething issue with their app manager. Is its prime time ready ?
Red Hat are allowed to charge for their software, and they are only obliged to make source code available to people who buy the binaries. The problem is the Red Hat Subscription Agreement which prevents you from redistributing any software you receive under it, or using it on more computers than you are "licenced" for. That is a GPL violation.
I somehow doubt it is that simple - purely because Red Hat has the money to deploy an army of lawyers to have worked that out already. Or do you have some kind of legal training here where you can speak from a position of knowledge? And I'm not defending Red Hat here, by the way - I am simply looking at this from a position of pragmatism.
My understanding is they aren't preventing anyone from sharing GPL code, but they will stop providing new binaries and code to anyone that chooses to do so.
@@Waitwhat469 What are you talking about? There will be legal charges against people who share the code they agreed not to share in the Red Hat Subscription Agreement. To the law such people are pirates. So yes, Red Hat is trying to prevent their users from sharing GPL code which is the violation of copyleft. Copyleft allows and encourages sharing. Watch any public speech by Richard Stallman to get the gist. However, Red Hat tries to be clever and find loopholes in copyleft by inventing this separate agreement nonsense in which you promise not to share the code.
@@emicahana3816 As part of the developers EULA "This Agreement establishes the rights and obligations associated with Subscription Services and is not intended to limit your rights to software code under the terms of an open source license." But in conflict with that above is in the same document: "If you use the Individual Developer Subscriptions for any other purposes or beyond the parameters described in these Program Terms, you are in violation of Red Hat’s Enterprise Agreement and are required to pay the Subscription fees that would apply to such use, in addition to any and all other remedies available to Red Hat under applicable law. Examples of such violations include, but are not limited to, using the Red Hat Subscription Services for Individual Development Use and/or Individual Production Use on more than sixteen (16) Physical or Virtual Nodes, or selling, distributing and/or rebranding the Red Hat Subscription Services (or any part thereof) contained in the Individual Developer Subscriptions." With Developer Subscriptions beign defined as in PRODUCT APPENDIX 1 SOFTWARE AND SUPPORT SUBSCRIPTIONS 1.2.g as: "Unauthorized Use of Subscription Services. Any unauthorized use of the Subscription Services is a material breach of the Agreement. Unauthorized use of the Subscription Services includes: (a) only purchasing or renewing Subscription Services based on some of the total number of Units, (b) splitting or applying one Software Subscription to two or more Units, (c) providing Subscription Services (in whole or in part) to third parties, (d) using Subscription Services in connection with any redistribution of Software or (e) using Subscription Services to support or maintain any non-Red Hat Software products without purchasing Subscription Services for each such instance (collectively, “Unauthorized Subscription Services Uses”)" It's a grey area, and I don't like it tbh
Thank you for "agoniz[ing] over this all weekend" and posting your analysis. "Boiling the frog" is the perfect phrase for what seems to be happening. These things always happen gradually -- it's only when we look back a few years that we notice we've been going the wrong direction.
Reputation where? I would imagine they like a good "community" reputation, but their core business is reputation among business. If they have to balance, it would be toward those whose funds flow to RH for its employees, its profit and re-investments into software, and generally it vitality. There just may be room for the hobbyist type (me) and the organization type in the Big House of Linux, where its major developers from Linus on down, work for medium or large organizations railed against during this controversy.
This is why I’ve always been skeptical of permissive license advocates. You can bend the language to make them seem more free, but there’s no protection for users down the line when nonfree open source software inevitably becomes closed source and proprietary. The GPL is restrictive in certain ways only to protect users and contributors in perpetuity, freedom isn’t free after all.
For me, if in the future I release the software I'm making as open source, I will release it under gpl since I dont want companies taking advantage of my work without contributing back. All I ask is just a share of work load in improving the software not snatching it and selling it as if you made it....
This is contradictory to the license itself. GPL allows selling modified and unmodified versions of the software. By instructing limitation of selling the software is a violation in of itself because it is up to the user currently holding the software.
I don't think the numbers of GPL projects are decreasing. It's a percentage thing. The total number of software repositories are increasing, so just permissive licensed projects are more popular and increasing too.
I don't understand your math...percentages are just a ratio of the total...if the percentages of GPL is decreasing that means the number of GPL based open source is decreasing at faster rate than the pool of open source projects is creating.
@@CyberGizmo only if there were a set max number. If there was 10 non-GPL projects and 90 GPL projects... GPL makes up 90%. If that changed over time with a lot of non-GPL added it could go to 200 non-GPL, while GPL grew to 200 projects... GPL more than doubled in total amount meaning it grew a lot, but they dropped from 90% to 50% even though they grew in number. (Numbers just made up to make a point in math, not reflect reality.) The lowering percentage means that other licenses are growing faster, not necessarily meaning GPL is decreasing at all.
The reason people or companies are avoiding GPL licenses is because GPL is too restrictive, because it forces companies who uses 3rd party software to licensed as GPL to be licensed into GPL License, and disclose source. That is why many companies are using licenses that are less restrictive. Since redhat has become part of IBM this means IBM wants to add more proprietary code to RedHat, releases, either they will use less restrictive licenses or buy the 3rd party software with GPL licenses.
Your final thoughts are same with mine too. Few months ago, I already supporting other Linux distro or org like KDE or GNU instead of canonical or RHEL. But It's just my personal reason to support for the open source org or project.
...and this is why byzantine distinctions between Free Software vs "Open Source" software are important, as things like these or worse will end up befalling the ecosystem.
Richard Brown from Suse actually gave a talk today after this was posted outlining the plans for ALP and how there will be desktop. A new model for Leap, etc.
What about all the freeriding companies cutting labor that used to feed back into the OSS community capital while they make billions off cloud operations running 90% donated code?
Occasionally, I experience a sense of uncertainty, wondering if there is something I haven't experienced. I've explored discussions comparing CentOS to Debian, Ubuntu to Debian, and others in the past. However, I have never actually deployed any of them on a production server. When it comes to reliability and stability, Debian has consistently proven itself to be exceptionally robust.
Bummer. First GNU/Linux I used and learned on was Red Hat 5.0/5.1/5.2 I still have the cool looking Red Hat 5.2 Branded installation and source code CD-ROM’s. 🙂
I wasn't convinced at first just looking at this recent move from Red Hat in isolation, but seeing the larger move away from GPL and more corporate control, convinced me that capitalism is trying to take open source away from the people who make it. So I will be switching all my personal and work system to Debian or other community run derivatives.
Thanks DJ! Good stuff as always. (The opposite never happen) One thing, I've heard a little "sand" in the right channel. Is it for purpose? Remind me old disks sound. Not a grammophone yet, but like my first "The Wall" disk. :)
@DJ I do wonder if ther is some sort of connection in the 'long game' with Rus programming language potentially being used in the Kernel. And recently Rust 'higher ups' have apparently causesd some serious drama among their community of programmers/developers with the lack of transparency which is looking like they were going push Rust toward a more controlled path rather than 'free'. The timing of it all is interesting to say the least. And apparently the only thing better than free is to make lots of money (apparently)
The counternarrative that RHEL apologists have been pushing in the tech press seems focused on Red Hat cutting off the "freeloaders" making "bug for bug" clones of RHEL, without contributing anything back. They seem to forget that Red Hat owes its entire existence to freeloading off a couple of little projects called the Linux kernel and GNU. Now Red Hat has grown fat enough it can go the proprietary OS route and pull the ladder up behind it. And you're right: I'm sure Canonical and SuSE are watching closely to see how it plays out, before making similar moves of their own.
During the course of making this video I saw a number which shocked me. Red Hat has made over $10 trillion since first instituting their collection of support fees.
@@CosmicCleric , they have reported $1.4B for the last Q only. Worked for RH as contractor before IBM and there were 60+ consecutive quarters with revenue increase.
@@CyberGizmo That number seems large, so I did a bit of Googling. It seems that the $10 trillion number is the total revenue earned by companies that use RHEL, rather than RH directly.
They didn't forget. They are being intentionally dishonest. They're either Red Hat sponsored tr0lls, or hop3less corporate s¡mps begging for the breadcrumbs.
@8:22 There is no surprise that big corporations aren't FOSS loving idealists. Even if the CEO was a FOSS friend, he has to suck the corporate schlong because that is what he signed up for. All it basically says is that open source has become more corporate. One thing is for certain, a FOSS project never dies as long as there are enough people who care. As Audacity was acquired by a corporate entity and had the audacity to insert telemetry upstream, some people were inclined to take the source code elsewhere and they did.
Regarding frog boiling - I think RedHat (aka big blue in a red hat) is trying to close down the RHEL "secret sauce" (testing and stability) as much as possible regardless of its GPL, and we'll see how far they can get away with it (I hope not far). But unlike Jay from Learn Linux - who shared JD's opinion of stopping to use commercial OSs at all - I think we should give the other vendors the benefit of the doubt, especially considering SUSE official blog post from June 29th where they talk about the freedom to distribute software (or you might read that post as an affirmation of the fears, considering the word GPL did not appear there).
I've always been a big believer in the RHEL-type distros, because of their extra security features. They're the only distros that come with SELinux installed and enabled, and the only ones that support OpenSCAP well. Anyway, I'm now in the process of creating a Debian 12 virtual machine, and I'm going to try my hand at getting SELinux going on it. OpenSCAP on Debian will be a bit more challenging, due to the lack of SCAP profiles for Debian. So, wish me luck.
Yeah, I wouldn't trust these companies if this is the direction that they discretely want to take Linux in. I would go with Debian for server needs at this point.
There are plans for continuing Leap development now, ongoing discussions about how to do it is on the mailing lists. I haven't checked in on it in a couple of days, going to do it now.
They got what they wanted from all the naive, do gooder community of developers...Got them to perform decades worth of free labor. Now they are saying "Thanks! Suckers!" A part of me thinks that was the plan all along.
Thanks friend for your "fact" based presentation. I learning a lot. I may say, the non-valued added rebuilders, who are profit and non-profit organizations, break the "spirit" of FOSS. Is this a Luddite vs Organizational fight? Luddites did not contain "progress". Your reality check and your conclusion are appreciated.
17:43 - would you be willing to list which communities you consider to be worthwhile? I’m thinking of switching, and… would like to have a better idea of where to go next.
These corporations want to be Microsoft or Apple. Use stuff for free and then make money off the back of it. Let's face it, corporations are all about the shareholders. Grifters. I'll stick to Debian and the like.
And I'm not against anyone making money off FOSS, but you've got to find a model that works within the licence. If these guys figure out how to thwart the licences, it'll be the biggest theft in history.
The GPL is not dead. If these companies want to create proprietary code they can go do that. But using derivative works from GPL code keeps their stuff effectively open to the world. The sooner they realize that the better. But you are correct, we should stop using these massive corporations' products.
@@CyberGizmo Thanks. I've got a mix of Debian and Ubuntu servers, laptops and desktops. So far, I've had both good and bad experiences with Debian 12 so I'm not ready to dump Ubuntu yet.
We need to continue to support the corporate backed Linux distros. RHEL and Canonical so much to the Linux Kernel that if they disappeared development would be a virtual standstill. These corporations bring the money are resources that make FOSS and Linux possible. Linux cannot survive on community development alone.
It seems to me the core issue is that there needs to be some clever funding mechanisms created for community projects like Debian. But I'm not sure what fair distribution would look like. Perhaps some kind of voting system coupled with usage metrics that weight the score in favor of the most used code. In terms of generation. We need a low user effort way to monetize the cheesy grifting desktop users like me, preferably with the machine itself. How about a distributed client that lets us grind crypto for the foundation when the machine is idle. Sort of like the SETI at home or protein folding projects. Or maybe there's some other market for distributed computing that could be sold into, distributed AI training or some such. Ads suck, but I'd even be open to running an ad window or screensaver as long as it was voluntary and under user control. Tax write-offs for contributions to open source might offer some incentive, or at least offset some labor. Just spit-balling here...
Thank you sir! You can never really trust any company, unless you are on-par with them in terms of power / money / influence. I wish LinuxMint (a great project) would switch to Debian as their primary edition(s). LMDE is my all-time favorite desktop install + Live distro, and I have been using Linux for 15 years.
I moved all but three systems over the weekend to Debian 12, there are 2 I can't move is because of reliance on underlying code (one from NVidia - the Jetson Orin) and the other from KHADAS, the don't have a binary for it, sent a note to them asking about it. The third I built up on Fedora Server, and will keep it there for now, its too far upstream to be part of the RHEL issues at present.
Great advice. After years of loyalty to Open SUSE , when they were once a positive force in Linux, I am about to take this advice and I am considering a move to Debian with some judicious use of Flatpak. Great Video,
@@tanveerhasan2382 The above video tells us that Red Hat (IBM ) , Canonical ( Ubuntu ) and SUSE, have recently appeared to have made major decisions against the spirit and implementation of free and Open Source Software across all of their Linux products, in favour of more aggressive money making. This is likely to be bad news for the Linux Desktop User.
@@dezmondwhitney1208 Uh, I haven't seen any decisions of OpenSuse to pull a stunt like this. Quite the opposite actually. They released a few blogposts about the situation, and are strongly condemning what RedHat is doing.
The only reason most companies, especially all of those I’ve been workin in and with, using rhel clones was that it is rock solid and has enormous LTS. Said being said, very little care about bug to bug compatibility. Alma and Oracle just announced to give up this last piece. How I see it: RHEL will decline in regards of significance. So why upgrade to a rhel subscription for enterprise support then? Up until recently you could easily switch. Now? Well, just op for another subscription. I guess Oracle will be the true winner now - at least until they, again, piss all off. Funny, they stated officially they are committed to gplv2. I’d wonder if openzfs will actually be supported to with their very own OS? Time, as always, will tell. Yet, I have a vague idea that this won’t be happening. I assume Larry is watching your channel. But, DjWare, you personally, how do you see that? If I recall correctly you’ve been with IBM longer than most of the todays workforce in IT actually is able to read.
Believe me, I'm planning on switching from Kubuntu to Vanilla OS as soon as a KDE release is available. Free and open source is great for companies/corporations...until it affects their bottom line. I suspect Red Hat is doing this (and took over CentOS for the same reason), to keep people from "freeloading" off RHEL using stuff like Alma or Rocky.
Personally, I think it is the likes of IBM?RHEL that are "freeloading". "Stealing" free stuff and then loading it with legal gobbledegook to extort $$$$ from gullible corporations, who think the more they pay, the more reliable it is.
I think we should not dump the downstream like Mint incase of Ubuntu ( as someone wrote), we should dump the upstream like Fedora and see how redhat will continue without the free feeders.
I reckon Mint should switch to the LMDE version as flagship, rather than the Ubuntu version. It will probably happen at some time in the not too distant future, methinks.
So what's remaining for the linux server? Debian? And no rumblings yet as to who or when they'll ever sell out? And if they ever do could that bite Ubuntu since they're debian based?
as Dennis Ritchie used to say the only difference between a server and a workstation, is a monitor, keyboard and a mouse. Technically any linux distro can become a server and there are still over 400 of those left.
Debian and ubuntu seem to have a more symbiotic relationship, canonical employs full time contributors to work on debian, but does not seem interested in controlling the direction debian is going. So debian seems 'safe' so far
One epically dumb move from RH. But I will be blunt. I worked with IBM back in the day as an AS/400 admin. They are a large corp, who specialise is squeezing the sand tighter, as it pours through their fingers. They want control and to profit but do many things that create an opposite outcome. I have a bit of a problem with 'leave SuSE, RH, and Ubuntu. And that is a genuine - and? go where? At the home lab or personal level, you can get by, but *I* (I'm only speaking from my personal view here) - I want to have vendors who make code and offer support. There should be room to make some money and do the thing. Rocky Linux and Alma are at the very least left in a grey area. Rough times.
I understand, while Debian doesn't offer a paid support option, there are almost 500 companies in 59 countries that do. I am not sure Rocky is affected, I remember when they setup, their founder took careful steps so as not to be dependent on the RHEL repos, he planned ahead for the day when Red Hat would pay wall them. Alma Linux I am not so sure. As I recall from IBM they are quick to fire sales leaders who miss their quotas, and once is all it takes.
after that linus torvalds should forever reject any changes to the kernel (and anything else related) from redhat! also including other linux components (kde, wayland)
It doesn't make any real difference to home users but commercial setups could be affected. I was running fedora on my pc and Alma on my servers. I'm switching my PC to Redhat EL and give that a try, but like others I'm waiting for KDE and then I might try an alternative like Debian, but at this stage I'll switch to Redhat if I need to. I can have up to 16 machines on their Developers licence etc. I will never touch Ubuntu again.
Hi D. J. I mentioned within an earlier post, that I wrote some gpl3 software. I wrote a program that interprets the /etc/fstab or similar, and validates the fields. If it finds an error, it will produce a diagnostic. It will also reformat into easy to read columns, each of the 6 fields of an /etc/fstab. In exchange for all of my viewing of your wonderfully researched posts. I would really like to send you the source code as a git repository, for you to use. If it is useful, a thank you would be all that I would need. It is, a finished product, until someone issues a request for enhancement. You are really under no obligation. BTW, I bet I am 10+ years older than you. '41 was my year of... Your fan Leslie
I've always considered Redhat to be proprietary software. They went enterprise licensing and consistently fought against binary compatible distributions. So, this latest example is par for the course. I fully support their ability to do this, especially considering their support of the underlying projects.
most of people always put nonfloss business models/ tactics/ strategy for floss (free libre open source software) gnu linux . that is very dangerous for floss (free libre open source software) gnu linux. floss gnu linux have their own business models/ tactics/ strategy
I can say after 2010 the creative ways that made linux unique started to disappear remember virtual desktop or write on the desktop with fire? I do it was awesome and linux wasn't bloated.
For over a decade now Debian on the server at work. On the desktop (just playing around) I've gravitated Debian -> Mint... -> LMDE? Time will tell. Or perhaps back to Debian. I haven't played w/ Bookworm enough yet. P.S. I want to like FreeBSD, and play with it too once in a blue moon. I'll still keep tabs on them.
So should I dump Mint Linux because it's downstream from Canonical? You said dump pretty much everything IMO, so do I crawl back to Microslop and pay for costly top-grade AV programs just to keep a PC afloat?
Back to the Church of the SubGenius. It's been a while. I've also embraced OpenBSD as of late. It's small, it's clean and it's true to it's philosophy.
Shameless plus for NixOS. It appears to have none of these problems so far, and given the way it's developed, it will take a long time for it to get them.
From the Centos Streams FAQ: "We’ve seen our ecosystem embrace CentOS Stream as a “rolling preview” of what’s next in RHEL, both in terms of kernels and features. " Semantics my friend, but the idea is the same its unsuitable as a replacement for a RHEL repo.
lol, rolling release; update your terminology. Stick with OS, and ditch terms like distro's, spin and flavours since booting up a computer (and choosong a repo manager) is already confusing enough for that mini minority interested in Linux. It's especially confusing for Desktop Linux users. Discussing Apple's, Microsoft's and Samsung's et all their ToS, EULA, etc. makes more sense. Go get them tiger!
From the Centos Streams FAQ: "We’ve seen our ecosystem embrace CentOS Stream as a “rolling preview” of what’s next in RHEL, both in terms of kernels and features. " Semantics ... meaning is the same.
That's certainly an interesting take. If they wish to charge for code they've written, I don't really care, as long as they still provide it to the paying customers. Do I care if the GPL tries to force modifications to be under the GPL? Yeah, because the code you write is and should always be yours to control. It's your copyright if you write it, but the GPL violates that, and truthfully it hampers my ability as a developer to use other people's code. I specifically avoid modifying GPL'd projects precisely because I don't want someone else telling me what I can and can't do with code I write. If something is in a library and I can use it without it infecting my own code, I'll consider using it, but anything else is a no go. It seems that nearly everyone in the OSS community doesn't really care about freedom and are just in it for the free stuff. I find that kind of sad. I'm sure a lot of entitled users would not take kindly to my viewpoint on this whole matter, but that's fine, many projects won't be getting any features from me because I refuse to relinquish control of the code I write. If I release something as open source, I do it to benefit others, not just myself, and if someone comes along and wishes to use it as a base for their own project, why should I want to stop them from doing so. If I wanted to make profit off of it I wouldn't release it to the community at large, only to my customers. Furthermore, I think a lot of people are forgetting how difficult and time consuming it can be to build a binary for thousands of different projects. If anyone wants to charge for their efforts, why should they not be allowed? I can understand being frustrated on the pricing of such things, because as tooling is built up over time the price should either come down or stabilize, absent runaway inflation, but to demand that no one be allowed to make a profit from their work is just begging for no one to do the work ever. If your take is that you don't want to profit off of your own code so no one should profit from it, well, then don't open source it. Freeware exists as a category for this very reason. If you think the code will benefit the community at large and still want no one to profit from its use, then you're saying that profit isn't beneficial, or you're just jealous of those who know how to market and sell a product, or maybe you're just schizophrenic, who knows, but that's not a sustainable viewpoint, not just for the community at large but society as a whole. Everything technological is built upon that which came before, so if no one is allowed to profit from their additions then nothing will improve. I doubt anyone will read this, if TH-cam doesn't delete or hide it anyhow, but I await an entitled, whiny rant on why I'm "wrong", if by some miracle this does get read.
You're wrong in the sense that you feel entitled to build a profiting business on GPL code without respecting the license intentions. If you want to build a profiting business on my AGPL code, maybe you should sign a business contract with me instead of feeling entitled to profit from other people's work without a relationship beyond the public license.
@@CrucialFlowResearch In other words, you're saying that the GPL is either insufficient to enumerate the license restrictions you want to impose or back to what I said in my post, if you bothered to read it all, you're jealous of my ability to profit from putting in the work you didn't want to put in, such as by building a binary for the end user. So, either use a different license, or keep it closed source.
I write software and release it as gpl3, source code and all build Makefiles! I give it out freely, and to those, I ask, only to provide me with bug reports or some patch ideas to make the offering better. What should I do, if the person I gave the software to, removes my copyright, rebrands the software and sells my software as their own? Is it right? And when I release a bug fix, they take it, insert the fix into the rebranded copy they are selling, and I sense they quietly say, "Screw You, Leslie". Suppose I was the government, and I did that same offer to end-users. Would the redistribution be legit, and even honest, if from the government, and it was for remuneration? The right-or-wrong activity is really a discussion about (non)ownership and rules for sharing. In the Leslie case, Leslie is the owner. In the government case, the people are the owners. What gives a company the right to clone and rebrand my product and resell it? Under the gpl3, they have an unenforceable obligation to provide me with bug reports. They do not have a moral right to redistribute my software as their own, and for remuneration. In two cases, Alma Linux and Rocky Linux are known Red Hat, clones. We understand that they copy the sources, the bug fixes, and rebrand the software as their own. In most cases, vanilla in -- vanilla out. What should Red Hat do to recover the costs for development of new features, documentation, distribution, bug-fixes, 24/7 support as well, the infrastructure that allowed an individual to freely download the entire package. The clones have none of those obligations or costs? Part of Red Hat's contribution to Linux is the financing of Centos and Fedora. Moreover, visit kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/ to get an idea of the extent that RedHat contributes to Linux and the industry. Moreover, visit "kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/" to get a small idea of the investment, operating costs, and end-user benefits. RedHat is not the villain. Recall, Red Hat shareholders are not a government body. IBM has not asked for a pound of flesh. Red Hat operates at arm's length from IBM.
This is why Debian has always had a special place in my heart. Good software without a large corporation.
_Arch and Fedora are good as girlfriends, Debain good as wife_
Same, but recently found suse tumbleweed and it would be hard to part with as daily driver/desktop.....
I'm glad that the Mint guys had the forethought to start LMDE on the side. IMO, Mint really is getting to the point where it could move up the ladder.
@@goldilockszone4389so I'll stick with the girlfriends (;
@@MaxUgly I have heard some good things about Suse. Whats your exp ? I heard there are some teething issue with their app manager. Is its prime time ready ?
Red Hat managed to piss off the community even more than Canonical, and that's saying a lot.
Canonical only pissed off newbies.
Why would anyone think that once IBM got their grubby hands on things that this wouldn't be the outcome ?
Only a fool believed in IBM's honest intentions toward RedHat.
Because many are afraid to be called "ConSpiRAcy TheOrisT", for noticing, knowing and understading patterns of bahavior or patterns in general.
IBM has never produced a fail proof product in their entire life.
Red Hat are allowed to charge for their software, and they are only obliged to make source code available to people who buy the binaries.
The problem is the Red Hat Subscription Agreement which prevents you from redistributing any software you receive under it, or using it on more computers than you are "licenced" for. That is a GPL violation.
I somehow doubt it is that simple - purely because Red Hat has the money to deploy an army of lawyers to have worked that out already.
Or do you have some kind of legal training here where you can speak from a position of knowledge?
And I'm not defending Red Hat here, by the way - I am simply looking at this from a position of pragmatism.
My understanding is they aren't preventing anyone from sharing GPL code, but they will stop providing new binaries and code to anyone that chooses to do so.
Yep, the GPL requires distributing source code IF AND WHEN you distribute the binaries.
@@Waitwhat469 What are you talking about? There will be legal charges against people who share the code they agreed not to share in the Red Hat Subscription Agreement. To the law such people are pirates.
So yes, Red Hat is trying to prevent their users from sharing GPL code which is the violation of copyleft.
Copyleft allows and encourages sharing. Watch any public speech by Richard Stallman to get the gist.
However, Red Hat tries to be clever and find loopholes in copyleft by inventing this separate agreement nonsense in which you promise not to share the code.
@@emicahana3816 As part of the developers EULA "This Agreement establishes the rights and obligations associated with Subscription Services and is not intended to limit your rights to software code under the terms of an open source license."
But in conflict with that above is in the same document:
"If you use the Individual Developer Subscriptions for any other purposes or beyond the parameters described in these Program Terms, you are in violation of Red Hat’s Enterprise Agreement and are required to pay the Subscription fees that would apply to such use, in addition to any and all other remedies available to Red Hat under applicable law. Examples of such violations include, but are not limited to,
using the Red Hat Subscription Services for Individual Development Use and/or Individual Production Use on more than sixteen (16) Physical or Virtual Nodes, or
selling, distributing and/or rebranding the Red Hat Subscription Services (or any part thereof) contained in the Individual Developer Subscriptions."
With Developer Subscriptions beign defined as in PRODUCT APPENDIX 1
SOFTWARE AND SUPPORT SUBSCRIPTIONS 1.2.g as:
"Unauthorized Use of Subscription Services. Any unauthorized use of the Subscription Services is a material breach of the Agreement.
Unauthorized use of the Subscription Services includes: (a) only purchasing or renewing Subscription Services based on some of the total
number of Units, (b) splitting or applying one Software Subscription to two or more Units, (c) providing Subscription Services (in whole or
in part) to third parties, (d) using Subscription Services in connection with any redistribution of Software or (e) using Subscription Services
to support or maintain any non-Red Hat Software products without purchasing Subscription Services for each such instance (collectively,
“Unauthorized Subscription Services Uses”)"
It's a grey area, and I don't like it tbh
Great analysis. Debian just got even more important.
Thank you for "agoniz[ing] over this all weekend" and posting your analysis. "Boiling the frog" is the perfect phrase for what seems to be happening. These things always happen gradually -- it's only when we look back a few years that we notice we've been going the wrong direction.
IBM ordered Red Hat to increase profits at the expense of reputation, and here is the result.
IBM and Oracle like it.
Reputation where? I would imagine they like a good "community" reputation, but their core business is reputation among business. If they have to balance, it would be toward those whose funds flow to RH for its employees, its profit and re-investments into software, and generally it vitality. There just may be room for the hobbyist type (me) and the organization type in the Big House of Linux, where its major developers from Linus on down, work for medium or large organizations railed against during this controversy.
You need to use a more permissive license so we can take the code and make proprietary code from it. -Some corporation, probably.
This is why I’ve always been skeptical of permissive license advocates. You can bend the language to make them seem more free, but there’s no protection for users down the line when nonfree open source software inevitably becomes closed source and proprietary. The GPL is restrictive in certain ways only to protect users and contributors in perpetuity, freedom isn’t free after all.
Good work having a knowledgeable person expressing an informed opinion regarding the open-source world of apparently unnecessary confusion.
For me, if in the future I release the software I'm making as open source, I will release it under gpl since I dont want companies taking advantage of my work without contributing back. All I ask is just a share of work load in improving the software not snatching it and selling it as if you made it....
I use AGPL, which is better than GPL regarding cloud services, but I sometimes use MIT depending on the nature of the project
This is contradictory to the license itself. GPL allows selling modified and unmodified versions of the software. By instructing limitation of selling the software is a violation in of itself because it is up to the user currently holding the software.
I don't think the numbers of GPL projects are decreasing. It's a percentage thing. The total number of software repositories are increasing, so just permissive licensed projects are more popular and increasing too.
I don't understand your math...percentages are just a ratio of the total...if the percentages of GPL is decreasing that means the number of GPL based open source is decreasing at faster rate than the pool of open source projects is creating.
@@CyberGizmo only if there were a set max number. If there was 10 non-GPL projects and 90 GPL projects... GPL makes up 90%. If that changed over time with a lot of non-GPL added it could go to 200 non-GPL, while GPL grew to 200 projects... GPL more than doubled in total amount meaning it grew a lot, but they dropped from 90% to 50% even though they grew in number. (Numbers just made up to make a point in math, not reflect reality.) The lowering percentage means that other licenses are growing faster, not necessarily meaning GPL is decreasing at all.
The reason people or companies are avoiding GPL licenses is because GPL is too restrictive, because it forces companies who uses 3rd party software to licensed as GPL to be licensed into GPL License, and disclose source. That is why many companies are using licenses that are less restrictive.
Since redhat has become part of IBM this means IBM wants to add more proprietary code to RedHat, releases, either they will use less restrictive licenses or buy the 3rd party software with GPL licenses.
Your final thoughts are same with mine too. Few months ago, I already supporting other Linux distro or org like KDE or GNU instead of canonical or RHEL. But It's just my personal reason to support for the open source org or project.
...and this is why byzantine distinctions between Free Software vs "Open Source" software are important, as things like these or worse will end up befalling the ecosystem.
Richard Brown from Suse actually gave a talk today after this was posted outlining the plans for ALP and how there will be desktop. A new model for Leap, etc.
Is it online somewhere?
I'd really like to see it.
@@GeoStreber openSUSE's TH-cam channel from about two weeks ago: There's a mountain to climb: openSUSE's response to SUSE ALP
Absolutely agree with you. Just dump them!
What about all the freeriding companies cutting labor that used to feed back into the OSS community capital while they make billions off cloud operations running 90% donated code?
I like how wide your view is, it really helps to see the bigger picture of what is happening
thanks @fuseteam
@@fuseteam ok, I'll delete the comments if you're feeling harassed
@@formbi thanks for cleaning up the thread
I am happy with my debian
And businesses are happy with RedHat and Cannonical. Different strokes for different folks.
Occasionally, I experience a sense of uncertainty, wondering if there is something I haven't experienced. I've explored discussions comparing CentOS to Debian, Ubuntu to Debian, and others in the past. However, I have never actually deployed any of them on a production server. When it comes to reliability and stability, Debian has consistently proven itself to be exceptionally robust.
Bummer. First GNU/Linux I used and learned on was Red Hat 5.0/5.1/5.2
I still have the cool looking Red Hat 5.2 Branded installation and source code CD-ROM’s. 🙂
The first Wenux I used was Gentoo so there aren't any CDs for me to keep
I wasn't convinced at first just looking at this recent move from Red Hat in isolation, but seeing the larger move away from GPL and more corporate control, convinced me that capitalism is trying to take open source away from the people who make it.
So I will be switching all my personal and work system to Debian or other community run derivatives.
Thanks DJ! Good stuff as always. (The opposite never happen)
One thing, I've heard a little "sand" in the right channel. Is it for purpose? Remind me old disks sound. Not a grammophone yet, but like my first "The Wall" disk. :)
You are correct
@DJ
I do wonder if ther is some sort of connection in the 'long game' with Rus programming language potentially being used in the Kernel. And recently Rust 'higher ups' have apparently causesd some serious drama among their community of programmers/developers with the lack of transparency which is looking like they were going push Rust toward a more controlled path rather than 'free'.
The timing of it all is interesting to say the least.
And apparently the only thing better than free is to make lots of money (apparently)
Yeah, Red Hat had a good model which Bob Young and Marc Ewing setup, now they are Blue Washed and greedy....
clearly redhat was making too little money for IBM, so now they will be making less money. Sounds like IBM alright....
The counternarrative that RHEL apologists have been pushing in the tech press seems focused on Red Hat cutting off the "freeloaders" making "bug for bug" clones of RHEL, without contributing anything back. They seem to forget that Red Hat owes its entire existence to freeloading off a couple of little projects called the Linux kernel and GNU. Now Red Hat has grown fat enough it can go the proprietary OS route and pull the ladder up behind it. And you're right: I'm sure Canonical and SuSE are watching closely to see how it plays out, before making similar moves of their own.
During the course of making this video I saw a number which shocked me. Red Hat has made over $10 trillion since first instituting their collection of support fees.
@@CyberGizmo Trillion? Or did you mean billion or million?
@@CosmicCleric , they have reported $1.4B for the last Q only. Worked for RH as contractor before IBM and there were 60+ consecutive quarters with revenue increase.
@@CyberGizmo That number seems large, so I did a bit of Googling. It seems that the $10 trillion number is the total revenue earned by companies that use RHEL, rather than RH directly.
They didn't forget. They are being intentionally dishonest. They're either Red Hat sponsored tr0lls, or hop3less corporate s¡mps begging for the breadcrumbs.
@8:22 There is no surprise that big corporations aren't FOSS loving idealists. Even if the CEO was a FOSS friend, he has to suck the corporate schlong because that is what he signed up for. All it basically says is that open source has become more corporate. One thing is for certain, a FOSS project never dies as long as there are enough people who care. As Audacity was acquired by a corporate entity and had the audacity to insert telemetry upstream, some people were inclined to take the source code elsewhere and they did.
Regarding frog boiling - I think RedHat (aka big blue in a red hat) is trying to close down the RHEL "secret sauce" (testing and stability) as much as possible regardless of its GPL, and we'll see how far they can get away with it (I hope not far). But unlike Jay from Learn Linux - who shared JD's opinion of stopping to use commercial OSs at all - I think we should give the other vendors the benefit of the doubt, especially considering SUSE official blog post from June 29th where they talk about the freedom to distribute software (or you might read that post as an affirmation of the fears, considering the word GPL did not appear there).
I've always been a big believer in the RHEL-type distros, because of their extra security features. They're the only distros that come with SELinux installed and enabled, and the only ones that support OpenSCAP well. Anyway, I'm now in the process of creating a Debian 12 virtual machine, and I'm going to try my hand at getting SELinux going on it. OpenSCAP on Debian will be a bit more challenging, due to the lack of SCAP profiles for Debian. So, wish me luck.
Yeah, I wouldn't trust these companies if this is the direction that they discretely want to take Linux in. I would go with Debian for server needs at this point.
There are plans for continuing Leap development now, ongoing discussions about how to do it is on the mailing lists. I haven't checked in on it in a couple of days, going to do it now.
Long live BSD! Glad I never went with a Redhar based distro in ages :P
Wenux is dying
They got what they wanted from all the naive, do gooder community of developers...Got them to perform decades worth of free labor. Now they are saying "Thanks! Suckers!"
A part of me thinks that was the plan all along.
Thanks friend for your "fact" based presentation. I learning a lot. I may say, the non-valued added rebuilders, who are profit and non-profit organizations, break the "spirit" of FOSS. Is this a Luddite vs Organizational fight? Luddites did not contain "progress". Your reality check and your conclusion are appreciated.
What about SystemD and all the other things that Red Hat have their fingers on and are trying to "infect" the kernel?
Different topic from this one, but yes, and their continued insistence on killing off the /etc directory.
When you get so big, you are independently wealthy. You have total control, and the community becomes a burden.
17:43 - would you be willing to list which communities you consider to be worthwhile? I’m thinking of switching, and… would like to have a better idea of where to go next.
These corporations want to be Microsoft or Apple. Use stuff for free and then make money off the back of it. Let's face it, corporations are all about the shareholders. Grifters. I'll stick to Debian and the like.
And I'm not against anyone making money off FOSS, but you've got to find a model that works within the licence. If these guys figure out how to thwart the licences, it'll be the biggest theft in history.
@@bryede Spot On.
The GPL is not dead. If these companies want to create proprietary code they can go do that. But using derivative works from GPL code keeps their stuff effectively open to the world. The sooner they realize that the better. But you are correct, we should stop using these massive corporations' products.
17:27 but if you dump them all what does remain with official support?
That leaves us with Debian and Arch. Is there any other option left?
Gentoo/ Funtoo and all the independent ones.
OpenSUSE
Thanks for this explanation. Out of curiosity which distro are you using in this video?
I use Asahi Linux which is running on an M1 Mac mini, my servers are Debian and Ubuntu, I am in the process of moving them all to Debian 12
@@CyberGizmo Thanks. I've got a mix of Debian and Ubuntu servers, laptops and desktops. So far, I've had both good and bad experiences with Debian 12 so I'm not ready to dump Ubuntu yet.
We need to continue to support the corporate backed Linux distros. RHEL and Canonical so much to the Linux Kernel that if they disappeared development would be a virtual standstill. These corporations bring the money are resources that make FOSS and Linux possible. Linux cannot survive on community development alone.
Thanks!
Thank you, Jimmy much appreciated
@@CyberGizmo You’re very welcome. I’ve enjoyed a number of your videos. Thank you!
It seems to me the core issue is that there needs to be some clever funding mechanisms created for community projects like Debian. But I'm not sure what fair distribution would look like. Perhaps some kind of voting system coupled with usage metrics that weight the score in favor of the most used code.
In terms of generation. We need a low user effort way to monetize the cheesy grifting desktop users like me, preferably with the machine itself. How about a distributed client that lets us grind crypto for the foundation when the machine is idle. Sort of like the SETI at home or protein folding projects. Or maybe there's some other market for distributed computing that could be sold into, distributed AI training or some such.
Ads suck, but I'd even be open to running an ad window or screensaver as long as it was voluntary and under user control. Tax write-offs for contributions to open source might offer some incentive, or at least offset some labor. Just spit-balling here...
Thank you sir!
You can never really trust any company, unless you are on-par with them in terms of power / money / influence.
I wish LinuxMint (a great project) would switch to Debian as their primary edition(s). LMDE is my all-time favorite desktop install + Live distro, and I have been using Linux for 15 years.
I meant you can trust signed agreements, but only if you can enforce them and win in the court.
Hi DJware, Given you final thougts, which Linux distro would you recommend moving forward, for a workstation?
Debian is what others on videos on youtube the last few days have suggested
I moved all but three systems over the weekend to Debian 12, there are 2 I can't move is because of reliance on underlying code (one from NVidia - the Jetson Orin) and the other from KHADAS, the don't have a binary for it, sent a note to them asking about it. The third I built up on Fedora Server, and will keep it there for now, its too far upstream to be part of the RHEL issues at present.
Great advice. After years of loyalty to Open SUSE , when they were once a positive force in Linux, I am about to take this advice and I am considering a move to Debian with some judicious use of Flatpak. Great Video,
What happened to open SUSE?
@@tanveerhasan2382 The above video tells us that Red Hat (IBM ) , Canonical ( Ubuntu ) and SUSE, have recently appeared to have made major decisions against the spirit and implementation of free and Open Source Software across all of their Linux products, in favour of more aggressive money making. This is likely to be bad news for the Linux Desktop User.
@@dezmondwhitney1208 Uh, I haven't seen any decisions of OpenSuse to pull a stunt like this. Quite the opposite actually. They released a few blogposts about the situation, and are strongly condemning what RedHat is doing.
Do you think this will hurt Fedora? Or will it not matter because Fedora is upstream?
I think Fedora will be ok, its way upstream from all this mess
video is all over the place. sound is cutting off abruptly. then video skips a thought. now we've opened up the terminal and looking at diff.
Sorry about the rough edits in the first part, will try and do better next time. I think my anger got in the way.
The only reason most companies, especially all of those I’ve been workin in and with, using rhel clones was that it is rock solid and has enormous LTS. Said being said, very little care about bug to bug compatibility. Alma and Oracle just announced to give up this last piece. How I see it:
RHEL will decline in regards of significance. So why upgrade to a rhel subscription for enterprise support then? Up until recently you could easily switch. Now? Well, just op for another subscription. I guess Oracle will be the true winner now - at least until they, again, piss all off. Funny, they stated officially they are committed to gplv2. I’d wonder if openzfs will actually be supported to with their very own OS? Time, as always, will tell. Yet, I have a vague idea that this won’t be happening. I assume Larry is watching your channel.
But, DjWare, you personally, how do you see that? If I recall correctly you’ve been with IBM longer than most of the todays workforce in IT actually is able to read.
Believe me, I'm planning on switching from Kubuntu to Vanilla OS as soon as a KDE release is available.
Free and open source is great for companies/corporations...until it affects their bottom line. I suspect Red Hat is doing this (and took over CentOS for the same reason), to keep people from "freeloading" off RHEL using stuff like Alma or Rocky.
Personally, I think it is the likes of IBM?RHEL that are "freeloading". "Stealing" free stuff and then loading it with legal gobbledegook to extort $$$$ from gullible corporations, who think the more they pay, the more reliable it is.
Alma and Rocky aren’t the problem. Oracle Linux and Amazon AWS are the problems.
This feels like a fascists take over. Thanks for giving us your informed opinion.
How about Manjaro? Dump or support? :) And which distro s should we support?
Manjaro is fine, I don’t know of any issues with it
I think we should not dump the downstream like Mint incase of Ubuntu ( as someone wrote), we should dump the upstream like Fedora and see how redhat will continue without the free feeders.
I reckon Mint should switch to the LMDE version as flagship, rather than the Ubuntu version. It will probably happen at some time in the not too distant future, methinks.
Yep I agree, Mint may switch to LMDE, when Ubuntu goes full Snap, as in their current demo release is showing.
So what's remaining for the linux server? Debian? And no rumblings yet as to who or when they'll ever sell out? And if they ever do could that bite Ubuntu since they're debian based?
as Dennis Ritchie used to say the only difference between a server and a workstation, is a monitor, keyboard and a mouse. Technically any linux distro can become a server and there are still over 400 of those left.
Debian and ubuntu seem to have a more symbiotic relationship, canonical employs full time contributors to work on debian, but does not seem interested in controlling the direction debian is going. So debian seems 'safe' so far
@@CyberGizmo I just mean ones with large communities and support behind them as well as being continually developed.
@@fuseteam hopefully stays that way.
@@colinstu given how easy situations change, it's hard to say but given canonical's track record i don't see it changing any time soon
i stop caring i use what software works best for me neither its non free or free or open ... :) great video man
One epically dumb move from RH. But I will be blunt. I worked with IBM back in the day as an AS/400 admin. They are a large corp, who specialise is squeezing the sand tighter, as it pours through their fingers. They want control and to profit but do many things that create an opposite outcome.
I have a bit of a problem with 'leave SuSE, RH, and Ubuntu. And that is a genuine - and? go where? At the home lab or personal level, you can get by, but *I* (I'm only speaking from my personal view here) - I want to have vendors who make code and offer support. There should be room to make some money and do the thing. Rocky Linux and Alma are at the very least left in a grey area.
Rough times.
I understand, while Debian doesn't offer a paid support option, there are almost 500 companies in 59 countries that do. I am not sure Rocky is affected, I remember when they setup, their founder took careful steps so as not to be dependent on the RHEL repos, he planned ahead for the day when Red Hat would pay wall them. Alma Linux I am not so sure. As I recall from IBM they are quick to fire sales leaders who miss their quotas, and once is all it takes.
@@CyberGizmonow i'm curious what rocky did, from the blog posts rocky seems to be cruising while alma seems to be rocky waters- i mean stormy seas
after that linus torvalds should forever reject any changes to the kernel (and anything else related) from redhat!
also including other linux components (kde, wayland)
Torvalds doesn't have anything to do with KDE or Wayland
Is it time to switch to Debian?
The order in marketshare in the server marker is 1) Ubuntu 2) Debian and 3) RHEL, so yeah move up to Debian :)
The time to switch to debian was 20 years ago, but it's ok if you're late - welcome to the party. Better late than never
@@CyberGizmo how come Red Hat is a much bigger company if they have smaller marketshare?
@@c3cxlamoney
Very proud of all you have accomplished.....Keep up the excellent Job!!!!
Should i dump fedora?
That's up to you, fedora is upstream from all this mess.
@@CyberGizmo thanks for your answer🤓
Thats why I stick to my good old six year old Arch installation.
It would have been nice if to hear your recommendations if anyone were to dump these platforms.
never have (afaik) and now never will use redhat products
Wise words from someone who knows Linux. Thank you. Well, i am on Arch, btw. Peace :-)
Me too Arch on Arm
It doesn't make any real difference to home users but commercial setups could be affected.
I was running fedora on my pc and Alma on my servers. I'm switching my PC to Redhat EL and give that a try, but like others I'm waiting for KDE and then I might try an alternative like Debian, but at this stage I'll switch to Redhat if I need to. I can have up to 16 machines on their Developers licence etc.
I will never touch Ubuntu again.
Slackware could use more love.
oh dj i have no i dea what was going on i'll go with your perspective
The market need a distribution with 10 years LTS, i wonder why people at Canonical or Debian does not understand that.
Check out Debian ELTS, they offer extended support for up to 10 years.
@@CyberGizmo thanks, checking...
Hi D. J. I mentioned within an earlier post, that I wrote some gpl3 software. I wrote a program that interprets the /etc/fstab or similar, and validates the fields. If it finds an error, it will produce a diagnostic. It will also reformat into easy to read columns, each of the 6 fields of an /etc/fstab.
In exchange for all of my viewing of your wonderfully researched posts. I would really like to send you the source code as a git repository, for you to use. If it is useful, a thank you would be all that I would need. It is, a finished product, until someone issues a request for enhancement. You are really under no obligation.
BTW, I bet I am 10+ years older than you. '41 was my year of...
Your fan
Leslie
Hi Leslie, thank you for the offer, might take you up on it, and thanks for the kind words on the video!
I've always considered Redhat to be proprietary software. They went enterprise licensing and consistently fought against binary compatible distributions. So, this latest example is par for the course.
I fully support their ability to do this, especially considering their support of the underlying projects.
I take pride in the fact that I have never used those crapware. I have always been a devoted user of Debian.
“Bowling the GPL frog” heheh lol
LOL
most of people always put nonfloss business models/ tactics/ strategy for floss (free libre open source software) gnu linux . that is very dangerous for floss (free libre open source software) gnu linux.
floss gnu linux have their own business models/ tactics/ strategy
I can say after 2010 the creative ways that made linux unique started to disappear remember virtual desktop or write on the desktop with fire? I do it was awesome and linux wasn't bloated.
debian and nix life
Hmmm... I'm 100% SUSE at the moment... been hearing a lot of good things about NIXos
For over a decade now Debian on the server at work. On the desktop (just playing around) I've gravitated Debian -> Mint... -> LMDE? Time will tell. Or perhaps back to Debian. I haven't played w/ Bookworm enough yet.
P.S. I want to like FreeBSD, and play with it too once in a blue moon. I'll still keep tabs on them.
I would recommend Debian Stable for servers and LMDE for desktops.
My home router is a Marvell Clearfog Pro running Armbian / Bookworm
Been running debian SID as my daily driver main PC for 20 years now - it works for me
So should I dump Mint Linux because it's downstream from Canonical? You said dump pretty much everything IMO, so do I crawl back to Microslop and pay for costly top-grade AV programs just to keep a PC afloat?
There are still 400 linux distros left lol, Microsoft...now there's a story in of itself
Linux Mint Debian Edition?
@@PhayzinOut No, it's Cinnamon 21.1
@@kwpctek9190 Complains about leaving Linux Mint. Doesn't know the difference between a DE and an alternative distro made by the SAME TEAM 🙄
Mint has shown the will to diverge from Ubuntu where they feel they need to and they're maintaining LMDE just in case.
It is so sad that I can't comment on this video.
Ok, I can say that, but not anything interesting - like calling out the misinformation at 13:20 about Canonical's Snap.
But when I put the real information in, about actual licensing and availability - the comment gets removed. And I don't even put in links!
Is TH-cam just allergic to me saying the word github?
That seems to be OK - so can I say GPL-3?
But apparently I can't say both Snap, GPL-3 and github in the same comment.
You really need to clean the stylus on your record player. That video is skipping all over the place!
Yeah the first part of the video was a little rough, will be more careful of my edits in the future.
@@CyberGizmo it's odd, I noticed the same thing on videos from several different creators. I thought it was something in YT because of that.
Back to the Church of the SubGenius. It's been a while. I've also embraced OpenBSD as of late. It's small, it's clean and it's true to it's philosophy.
Woot Slackware...
Shameless plus for NixOS. It appears to have none of these problems so far, and given the way it's developed, it will take a long time for it to get them.
Centos Stream is not a ROLLING RELEASE
From the Centos Streams FAQ: "We’ve seen our ecosystem embrace CentOS Stream as a “rolling preview” of what’s next in RHEL, both in terms of kernels and features. " Semantics my friend, but the idea is the same its unsuitable as a replacement for a RHEL repo.
lol, rolling release; update your terminology.
Stick with OS, and ditch terms like distro's, spin and flavours since booting up a computer (and choosong a repo manager) is already confusing enough for that mini minority interested in Linux. It's especially confusing for Desktop Linux users.
Discussing Apple's, Microsoft's and Samsung's et all their ToS, EULA, etc. makes more sense. Go get them tiger!
From the Centos Streams FAQ: "We’ve seen our ecosystem embrace CentOS Stream as a “rolling preview” of what’s next in RHEL, both in terms of kernels and features. " Semantics ... meaning is the same.
That's certainly an interesting take. If they wish to charge for code they've written, I don't really care, as long as they still provide it to the paying customers. Do I care if the GPL tries to force modifications to be under the GPL? Yeah, because the code you write is and should always be yours to control. It's your copyright if you write it, but the GPL violates that, and truthfully it hampers my ability as a developer to use other people's code. I specifically avoid modifying GPL'd projects precisely because I don't want someone else telling me what I can and can't do with code I write. If something is in a library and I can use it without it infecting my own code, I'll consider using it, but anything else is a no go. It seems that nearly everyone in the OSS community doesn't really care about freedom and are just in it for the free stuff. I find that kind of sad. I'm sure a lot of entitled users would not take kindly to my viewpoint on this whole matter, but that's fine, many projects won't be getting any features from me because I refuse to relinquish control of the code I write.
If I release something as open source, I do it to benefit others, not just myself, and if someone comes along and wishes to use it as a base for their own project, why should I want to stop them from doing so. If I wanted to make profit off of it I wouldn't release it to the community at large, only to my customers. Furthermore, I think a lot of people are forgetting how difficult and time consuming it can be to build a binary for thousands of different projects. If anyone wants to charge for their efforts, why should they not be allowed? I can understand being frustrated on the pricing of such things, because as tooling is built up over time the price should either come down or stabilize, absent runaway inflation, but to demand that no one be allowed to make a profit from their work is just begging for no one to do the work ever.
If your take is that you don't want to profit off of your own code so no one should profit from it, well, then don't open source it. Freeware exists as a category for this very reason. If you think the code will benefit the community at large and still want no one to profit from its use, then you're saying that profit isn't beneficial, or you're just jealous of those who know how to market and sell a product, or maybe you're just schizophrenic, who knows, but that's not a sustainable viewpoint, not just for the community at large but society as a whole. Everything technological is built upon that which came before, so if no one is allowed to profit from their additions then nothing will improve. I doubt anyone will read this, if TH-cam doesn't delete or hide it anyhow, but I await an entitled, whiny rant on why I'm "wrong", if by some miracle this does get read.
You're wrong in the sense that you feel entitled to build a profiting business on GPL code without respecting the license intentions. If you want to build a profiting business on my AGPL code, maybe you should sign a business contract with me instead of feeling entitled to profit from other people's work without a relationship beyond the public license.
@@CrucialFlowResearch In other words, you're saying that the GPL is either insufficient to enumerate the license restrictions you want to impose or back to what I said in my post, if you bothered to read it all, you're jealous of my ability to profit from putting in the work you didn't want to put in, such as by building a binary for the end user. So, either use a different license, or keep it closed source.
I write software and release it as gpl3, source code and all build Makefiles! I give it out freely, and to those, I ask, only to provide me with bug reports or some patch ideas to make the offering better.
What should I do, if the person I gave the software to, removes my copyright, rebrands the software and sells my software as their own? Is it right? And when I release a bug fix, they take it, insert the fix into the rebranded copy they are selling, and I sense they quietly say, "Screw You, Leslie".
Suppose I was the government, and I did that same offer to end-users. Would the redistribution be legit, and even honest, if from the government, and it was for remuneration?
The right-or-wrong activity is really a discussion about (non)ownership and rules for sharing. In the Leslie case, Leslie is the owner. In the government case, the people are the owners.
What gives a company the right to clone and rebrand my product and resell it? Under the gpl3, they have an unenforceable obligation to provide me with bug reports. They do not have a moral right to redistribute my software as their own, and for remuneration.
In two cases, Alma Linux and Rocky Linux are known Red Hat, clones. We understand that they copy the sources, the bug fixes, and rebrand the software as their own. In most cases, vanilla in -- vanilla out.
What should Red Hat do to recover the costs for development of new features, documentation, distribution, bug-fixes, 24/7 support as well, the infrastructure that allowed an individual to freely download the entire package. The clones have none of those obligations or costs? Part of Red Hat's contribution to Linux is the financing of Centos and Fedora. Moreover, visit kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/ to get an idea of the extent that RedHat contributes to Linux and the industry.
Moreover, visit "kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/" to get a small idea of the investment, operating costs, and end-user benefits. RedHat is not the villain.
Recall, Red Hat shareholders are not a government body. IBM has not asked for a pound of flesh. Red Hat operates at arm's length from IBM.
I'd contact the Software Freedom Conservancy, they are the watchdog for violations of the GPL
FreeBSD and OpenBSD are my choice of non-Windows OS's. I'd love to migrate all Windows users to FreeBSD but that's just a pipe dream.