I’m curious about what you think on how it will affect the Linux community and distros (especially RHEL based distros like Fedora or Rocky).

    • Ulu-Mulu-no-die@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Thanks, by reading “RHEL going closed source” first thing I thought is that would violate the GPL license, but the article you linked seems to indicate that’s not the case.

      CentOS is basically RHEL without Red Hat commercial stuff, so sources will still be freely available, just not directly from Red Had, am I understanding it correctly?

      • _HR_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        CentOS is basically RHEL without Red Hat commercial stuff, so sources will still be freely available, just not directly from Red Had, am I understanding it correctly?

        No, CentOS is no longer a RHEL clone, but a beta version of stuff that goes into RHEL.

    • taladar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I can’t be the only one who has no real interest in dealing with their developer program just to support their outdated distro.

    • ar0177417@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      undefined> u will still have full access to source through their developer program or as a pa

      Their developer plan is free

  • nkey@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    RHEL hasn’t gone closed source, it still complies with the GPL. If they provide you a binary, they must and will continue to provide you with the source code. I feel like this is like when they announced Centos Stream as a “rolling distro”, their messaging is awful, and the optics are bad. I feel this is more to stick it to Oracle and unfortunately, Alma and Rocky are just getting caught in the crossfire.

    • beefcat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      It has me conflicted. On one hand, fuck Oracle. On the other hand, we need projects like Alma and Rocky.

    • fugepe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

      With all the new updates happening around all the Linux peripherals, I wouldnt like to stay behind for the next 2/3 years on Debian

        • _HR_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Except not everything, as RHEL has selection of software updated to newer versions. Debian just keeps everything old.

          • lhx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            Debian has great backports support. And if you need fresher software use nix, flatpak, etc, or run testing or unstable.

      • TerraRoot@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        You don’t have to use stable for the entire duration of debian 12, switch to testing after say about six months, I’m running testing right now (by accident, forgot I was tracking testing and not bookworm/bullseye) only found a tiny bug with libvirtd.

        Debian is lovely os.

  • cstine@lemmy.uncomfortable.business
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is a fight between IBM and Oracle. There’s been a lot of bad blood between them since Oracle did a s/Red Hat/Oracle/r for their own branded distribution.

    IMO that’s the main driver behind this change: don’t feed your largest competitor free stuff and not something specific against Rocky/Alma/whoever else is using the code.

      • nkey@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        This was my initial thought as well, but I imagine that would violate the terms of their subscription and Red Hat could just revoke their access going forward.

        • priapus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          I doubt it would legal to make that against the terms. It GPL code, Oracle is allowed to access it as they please.

          • nkey@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 years ago

            Very true for the GPL code, but Red Hat adds code that isn’t GPL to the distro. So your downstream distros would have to cherry pick that code out.

          • exu@feditown.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            They could still revoke access. The subscription probably says something like “we can revoke access for any reason”. Most subscriptions do

            • priapus@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              True, but what’s stopping someone from uploading it anonymously? They have to share the code with customers, but that doesn’t mean GPL doesn’t apply to non-customers. Anyone working at these companies can download the source code and upload it online.

    • squidzorz@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      They didn’t even go that far lol. There’s still Red Hat branding all over the place in Oracle Linux.

  • ebike_enjoyer@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 years ago

    My immediate thoughts as a fedora user: Fedora is looked at as a bleeding edge testing distro for what eventually goes into red hat. By using fedora, I am sort of a beta tester for ibm, and am in some ways contributing to the improvement of a distribution (red hat) that goes against what I believe a Linux distribution should do. Given that, should I distro hop?

    Or is my brain just trying to make me distro hop again?

    • nkey@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Edit: spelling

      I would never consider Fedora bleeding edge, but that being said, after the Red Hat lawyers forced the removal of H.264 I did end up hopping after 5 very great years with Fedora. If you’re up for learning something new NixOS is a lot of fun.

      • ebike_enjoyer@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        NixOS is actually what I was considering! I like the immutable aspects of it but the setup will require me to find some downtime in order to get started.

        • nkey@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          That’s great to hear! It took me a few evenings wrap my head around it, but now I’m really enjoying it. There’s a great community as well!

    • blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      You have to make up your own mind. Personally the association with IBM or Oracle would put me right off a distro. But you can find evil in all these big companies, so pick your poison.

    • projectazar@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      You aren’t the only one. Ive been on Fedora for a few years because I liked what Gnome was doing, I liked the updated Kernel, and I was annoyed by canonical. Now I’m not really sure where to go, as both Pop and Mint do not, in their current forms, work well with my hardware.

      • cinaed666@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Not to revive any lame memes, but have a look at Arch Linux! I’ve been daily driving it for 10 years. It’s way more “updated” than fedora is.

        • spiritusmaximus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          does it have same interface? Fedoras gnome is unmatched (…to me, as far I tested around distros).

          Or is there any other equivalent, similar to fedora and its gnome?

          • flashgnash@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Arch doesn’t come with an interface, the idea is you build it up from the bare minimum yourself

            Wouldn’t recommend if you just want a usable desktop os

            As for gnome, gnome is gnome you can get it on any distro

    • knowncarbage@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      You could just use Fedora and not submit any bug reports as that would help them. Just quietly leech.

      It’s nice if you can find something that both does what you need and agrees with your philosophy…but usually some compromise is required.

    • flashgnash@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Go NixOS man it’s the one that finally convinced me to ditch windows entirely and stop hopping

    • A7thStone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Opensuse. If you’re used to fedora the learning curve is minimal to make that switch. I used SuSE for years until their Gnome 3 implementation had some issues. I switched to fedora for a couple of years, then switched back to tumbleweed a couple years ago and have been on that happily since.

  • PrivateNoob@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 years ago

    Absolute L move from them. Atleast it makes the choice easier if future distrohopping urges will haunt my zoom zoom brain.

  • M-Reimer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    They still give all the code to their customers and as it is still GPLed code, noone can stop redistribution. So I’m wondering who will be the first RHEL customer which runs some “open mirror” of the RHEL codebase.

        • Liquid_Fire@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          It doesn’t. The GPL is satisfied as long as they provide you with the source code for the version of RHEL that they distributed to you. But they’re not obligated to continue distributing later versions to you.

          • lhx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            I’m referring to their further restrictions on redistribution. I.e., why can’t the subscriber then redistribute GPL code they received?

            • Liquid_Fire@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              They absolutely can, but RHEL Red Hat will likely stop doing business with them if they find out (and thus stop giving them new versions), hence why they would only be able to do this once.

              • weavejester@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 years ago

                It doesn’t seem likely that would be allowed, as it would arguably constitute a restriction on distribution, which the GPL explicitly forbids.

                • Liquid_Fire@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  There’s no restriction on distribution. You’re free to distribute the GPL software you got from Red Hat.

                  They’re under no obligation to ship you other, different software in the future. You’re only entitled to get the source for the binaries they distributed to you. If they never give you the next version, you have no right to its source.

  • Danacus@lemmy.vanoverloop.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    Some additional information from Rocky Linux and Alma Linux, since many people (including me) are confused about the implications of this:

    https://rockylinux.org/news/2023-06-22-press-release/ https://almalinux.org/blog/impact-of-rhel-changes/

    Interestingly, Rocky Linux claims to be largely unaffected by this, while Alma Linux is desperately looking for alternative solutions.

    It seems like no one really knows what the implications are, and we will just have to wait and see.

    • knowncarbage@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Rocky’s reaction seems the same as Alma, current long-term solution is they don’t know. A more businessly optimism in the post doesn’t really make up for a clear technical plan going forward.

  • The Doctor@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    Honestly? I think Ubuntu’s userbase is about to get a lot bigger. The larger hosting companies (AWS and Digital Ocean are the two that come to mind immediately) support Ubuntu as a first-class citizen, so once the not-true blue RHEL distros take the hit migrations are going to happen.

  • WhoRoger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 years ago

    Someone enlighten me. What are we talking about? The whole distro? Isn’t almost all of it GNU stuff under GPL or similar licenses?

    Or is it just about some in-house made RH applications and patches done without any collaboration from outside people?

    I don’t get it how a Linux-based project can go closed-source after ~30 years.

    • homesnatch@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      To comply with GPL, RedHat simply has to provide source code to anyone they provide binaries to.

      • WhoRoger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yea, so why is everyone misrepresenting these news so damn hard? I’d think people who report on Linux would understand the core basics of GPL.

    • knowncarbage@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      The source can be open, just not easy to access…send an email and in 30 days they provide it, they are not obligated to have everything available instantly as they do now or provide an infrastructure to make life easy for community projects.

      They could also mix in proprietary code to make things more awkward afaik.

      I’d bear in mind in-house made applications RH provide include systemd, wayland, pipewire & gnome…as long as your distro and use case don’t depend on any of these, there’s no need to worry.

  • saplingtree@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    People use rocky/centos because they don’t want to deal with the hassles of licensing while also keeping the door open to an upgrade to RHEL if needed. I think this will be a net positive for Debian and Debian-based distros thanks to enterprise infra switching to Ubuntu which offers this (free use and an upgrade path to full compliance/commercial support.

    Them closing up completely undermines their UVP.

    • somewa@suppo.fi
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Doesn’t Canonical hold the updates (also security ones) for days if you don’t have the “pro” license?