LeFantome

LeFantome, 11 months ago

In my view, the “community” reaction was terrible. Regardless of if you agree with them or not, the response should be honest and rational. I found the reaction, emotional, political, and frankly dishonest. The response was that Red Hat was suddenly going proprietary, that they were violating the GPL, and / or that they were “taking” the work of untold legions of free software volunteers without giving back. They were accused of naked corporate greed by companies whose whole business is based on using Red Hat’s work without paying ( peak hypocrisy ).

Let’s start with what they actually did. Red Hat builds RHEL first by contributing all their code and collecting all the Open Source packages they use into a distribution called CentOS Stream. Once in a while, they fork that and begin building a new release of RHEL. That requires lots of testing, packaging, configuration, documentation, and other work required to make RHEL above and beyond the source code. Previously, they made the output of all this work publicly available. What they did was stop that. So, what does it look like now?

Red Hat now only distributes the RHEL SRPM packages to their subscribers ( which may be paying customers or getting it free ). The support agreement with Red Hat says that, if you distribute those to others, they will cancel your subscription. That is the big controversy.

What you cannot do now is “easily” build a RHEL clone that is guaranteed “bug for bug” compatible with RHEL and use it to compete with Red Hat. You will notice that those making the most noise, like Rocky Linux, want to do that.

So, are Red Hat violating the GPL? No.

First, Red Hat distributes all the code to make RHEL to the actual people they “distribute to” ( to their subscribers ) including everything required to configure and build it. This is everything required by the GPL and more.

Second, less than half of the code in RHEL is even GPL licensed. The text of the GPL itself says that the requirements of the GPL do not extend to such an “aggregate” ( the term the GPL itself uses ). So, Red Hat is going quite above and beyond the licensing by providing their subscribers code to the entire distribution. Yes, beyond.

Third, CentOS Stream remains open to everybody. You can build a Linux distribution from that that is ABI compatible with RHEL. That is what Alma Linux is doing now. Red Hat contributes mountains of free software to the world, both original packages and contributions to some of the most important packages in the free software world. Red Hat is not required to license packages they author under the GPL but they do. They are not required to make all of CentOS Stream available to the public but they do. They are certainly not freeloaders.

But what about this business of cancelling subscriptions? Isn’t that a restriction in violation of the GPL? Not in my view.

The GPL says that you are free to distribute code you receive under the GPL without fear of being accused of copyright violation. It says you can modify the code and distribute your changes. It says you can start a business in top of that code and nobody can stop you. Do RHEL subscribers enjoy all these freedoms. Yes. Yes they do.

What happens ( after the change ) when a RHEL subscriber violates the terms of their subscriber agreement? Well, they cease to be a subscriber. Does this mean they lose access to the source they got from RHEL? No. Does it mean they can be sued for distributing the code? No. I mean, you could risk trademark violation if you sell it I guess.

So, what does it mean that RHEL cancels your subscription? Well, it means they will no longer support you. I hope people see that as fair. It also means as bs they will no longer distribute their software to you IN THE FUTURE.

That is it. That is the outrage.

If you give away the results of Red Hat’s hard work to productize CentOS Stream into RHEL, they stop sending you future releases.

Again, that is it.

You can do whatever you want with what they already sent you. You have all the rights the GPL provides, even for software licenses as MIT, BSD, Apache, or otherwise. Nothing has been taken from you except access to FUTURE Red Hat product ( other than totally for free via CentOS Stream of course ).

Anyway, as you can see, they are the devil and we should hope their business fails. Because, why would we want a commercial successful company to keep contributing as much to Free Software and Open Source as they do?

LeFantome, 10 months ago

Look, everybody is entitled to their opinion and I respect yours. I have posted enough that it is just going to look combative and so I think this will be the last one. That said, this feels like the kind of “then why don’t we just allow murder” straw man that gets used when we want to argue emotions instead of facts. Yes, breaking your arm sounds very unfair. Is that a good analogy?

I think a much better analogy would be me signing an employment agreement that places restrictions on my freedoms that I otherwise have as a citizen of my country. Who cares what restrictions. Maybe I cannot drink at work. Maybe I cannot travel to certain countries. Maybe I cannot play video games on the work computer ( even at home ). Maybe I am not allowed to express certain political or religious views with customers. Or maybe there is a public article showing that all our competitors are better than us and I am not allowed to tell customers about that article. Let’s take that last one and assume I am American ( I am not but we need a legal framework we may all know ).

Has my company taken away my 1st amendment right to free speech? If I say something they do not like, they will take away my job and all the income I wanted from it in the future. Is that fair and ethical? It certainly hurts me. How is that not massively illegal under the US constitution? Surely employment law is less important than the constitution. How is it morally ok and not totally against “the spirit” of a free society?

Well, I have not lost any rights. I remain free to say what I want. However, there can be consequences. In this case, they are consequences that I have contractually agreed to. The First Amendment and my Employment Contract are not the same thing and they grant me different rights and impose different obligations. I am free to share the damaging article but, if I do, my employer will stop paying me.

Free Speech Absolutionists may insist that I not be fired for acting against the interests of my employer. Most of the rest of us understand that this os ok as we have to balance the interests of all parties of we want a system that works well overall. We also understand that no rights have been lost.

I see this as very much like that. Red Hat is not adding any new restrictions to the copyright license and, as such, they are granting you full rights as per that license. Legally, Red Hat is granting you the right to redistribute their code when they give you code licensed under the GPL. Simultaneously, they ask me to agree to a subscription agreement ( like an employer asks me to agree to an Employment Agreement ). The subscription agreement outlines what Red Hat will do for me and what I must agree to do in return. I do not have to agree to the subscription agreement. I can CHOOSE to because it offers something I want. In doing so, I may have agreed to some constraints on my otherwise fundamental rights or more general legal agreements.

So, I do not think Red Hat is threatening to break your arm. They do not harm you in any way other than to stop doing nice things for you in the future.

What I see in the reaction to Red Hat is a bunch of people that think they should be able to break their employment contracts but still keep getting paycheques from their employer.

If we still disagree, that is fine. I think this post fairly explains my position.

LeFantome, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

Red Hat does “subscribe” to the software they ship and fully complies with the terms specified for them to do so. Again, rhetoric completely at odds with the facts.

Let’s be explicit about the “loophole” that keeps getting talked about. What is it?

The GPL outlines a bunch of freedoms that you get when somebody distributes software to you. It does not provide any rights to anybody that has not been given software. Is that the loophole?

Red Hat provides CentOS Stream to everybody and so it, along with all its source code and everything else is available to the public. Only RHEL subscribers have any rights to RHEL because they are they only ones that get it from Red Hat. The public has no inherent right to RHEL, code or otherwise. This is of course compatible with the GPL and not in some nuanced tortured way but of course with its core purpose—to grant freedoms for software that you use ( have been given ). Is that the loophole?

The GPL talks about the rights you have regarding software you have already received—that you use—not software you may or may not receive in the future. Is that the loophole?

Importantly though, we are not talking about an individual package covered by the GPL. We are talking about RHEL, which is a collection of software of which less than half is even GPL licensed. On that basis, I submit that the following text ( extracted from the GPL itself ) might be the “loophole” that you are referring to:

“Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.”

Again, that language is quoted directly from the license.

Is that a loophole? Because it seems like a very specific provision to me. Did the authors of the GPL say that the GPL does not extend to all of RHEL by accident?

LeFantome, 10 months ago

I am not repeating anything Red Hat has said.( even if they said it ). I have not read any of their responses. I am reacting to what I have read and seen myself in the corners of tue Internet that I frequent ( where I have never seen Red Hat post — like here for example ). My thoughts and analysis are my own.

“Starting with the FSF definition” you say and then completely ignore what the GPL itself says about aggregates like RHEL. Again, less than half of RHEL is even software released under the GPL. Much of the software that is GPL was authored by Red Hat themselves. According to the text of the GPL itself, Red Hat is not required to distribute the code to the totality of the RHEL distribution or even to more than half the code. That is not a “loop hole”. The authors of the GPL went out of their way to spell this out. The word “aggregate” is introduced in the text of the GPL to specifically differentiate something like a full OS distribution from an individual work released under the GPL and included in that distribution. Beyond the hand-waving, I have never seen somebody explain to me how RHEL itself is governed by the GPL other than as an example of an “aggregate” that the GPL goes out of its way to point out would NOT be governed by the GPL. I have pointed this out many times and, disappointingly, the responses I get always completely ignore this. RHEL is not governed by the GPL other than as something that is specifically and explicitly excluded from the conditions of the GPL by the text of the GPL itself ( not as loop hole but by a section of the license that does not even need to be in the license other than to clarify this very thing ).

As for the “4 freedoms”, as stated above, you have all 4 of those freedoms for any GPL software from Red Hat. They even extend these freedoms to you for software that does not require it.

Let’s talk about “the spirit” off Free Software here.

The controversy is about Red Hat restricting the ability ( really just making it less convenient ) to piggy-back off them to make guaranteed “exact”, “identical”, “bug-for-bug” copies of RHEL. Why does Rocky Linux want to make “bug-for-bug” copies of RHEL? Why does Orace? Why does SUSE? Well that is simple. It is because they have built a business on providing guaranteed compatibility with RHEL.

What does “bug-for-bug” compatibility with RHEL mean? Well, it means that all that can be done is to rebuild and redistribute the packages created by Red Hat exactly as Red Hat created them. Does “the community” want to use this code as a base for incorporating their own changes and innovations? No. They cannot change it or it would no longer build into a bug-for-bug clone of RHEL. Can they even fix bugs? Again, no. “Bug-for-bug” means having the same bugs.

The people fighting hardest to take the exact packages output by Red Hat are explicitly fighting for the right to take RHEL without paying and with the express plan of giving absolutely nothing back.

And you know what, you can still do that with any code you get from Red Hat. If you are going to do that though, they want to stop sending you their future work. The horror.

The fury around these changes from Red Hat is that people ( most loudly companies that want to compete with Red Hat ) not only want to explicitly take without giving back but they also want to ensure that Red Hat is forced to provide all their future work for free as well. The demand is that Red Hat provide their labour and expense for free—forever.

And again, to be very clear, we are not even talking about source code. Because Red Hat does give away the code that they produce not just because they have to but because they want to ( they author stuff and make it GPL when they could choose other licenses ). They founded the Fedora project to create an aggressively free distribution and pay the salaries of many of its core contributors. This is very clearly something they volunteer willingly as they founded the project specifically to do that. Red Hat also pays to make CentOS Stream available which has all the same software and code in it as RHEL and can even be ABI compatible ( as Alma is now doing ). All the code, if that is what you want, is very available. Red Hat is not hoarding code. Red Hat is not taking anybody’s code and trying to close it off.

If this was about the code and the ability to preserve it for “the community” then then there would not be much problem. The problem is that people want specifically to make “bug-for-bug” RHEL clones now and in the future and they want Red Hat to do all the work to make that possible without any contribution from “the community” at all. Again, “the work” here is not authoring source code but all the other work that goes into making a full distribution.

What “community” is being damaged by telling people to use or fork CentOS Stream instead of trying to make “bug-for-bug” copies of RHEL? How is this “extremely damaging to the community and FOSS principles”?

If the right to take without giving back is what people mean by “the spirit” of Free Software then this is the moment that I break with Free Software and go fully Open Source.

For anybody that thinks that Free Software and Open Source are the same thing, Open Source is a pragmatic philosophy about how developer collaboration leads to better software while Free Software ( as defined by the Free Software Foundation ) is a political movement focused on the rights of users ( just user freedoms - explicitly not software author or developer freedoms ). The GPL, specially, restricts the freedom of software developers which is why many other Open Source licenses are often called “permissive” licenses ( because they are MORE free). Not all Open Source software is Free Software by the definition of Open Source provided by the Open Source Institute.

Red Hat, I notice, voluntarily chooses the GPL for the code they author instead of choosing a more “permissive” license. Interesting choice for such a “greedy corporation”.

I am all over the idea of collaboration around software development. I do not see though how anybody can claim to credibly fighting for that in this Red Hat spat though. If this were about collaboration ( not just explicit duplication ), I imagine Red Hat would be on board. Based on “the community” reaction, It seems that “the spirit” of Free Software is more about entitlement and the right to demand continued servitude from the people that create software for you. Ask not what I can do for the software but rather what does my software provider HAVE to do for me. Those are not politics that I care to support. Count me out

LeFantome, 10 months ago

“Are they….justified”?

1. Somebody thought the need for a new package manager was great enough to spend time creating one. That person at least must think it is justified.
2. We, the users, have not chosen just one of the options to be the standard. Does that “justify” that they all exist?

In the short term, the popularity of Linux is certainly hurt by the complexity of the ecosystem and the lack of standardization. As a product, it would see better adoption of it were more standardized. Without writing a book about why, there is no doubt about this. The short version is that, today, Linux is many products, none of which can compete as effectively as one would and all of them are impaired by the confusion this causes.

In the longer run though, it is almost certainly one of the great strengths of Linux. Linux is many products and as a result, it can target and effectively fill almost every niche. That is going to make it very hard for alternatives to compete at some point. Once Linux knowledge and Linux applications ( yes, I know ) become more mainstream, this compatibility between options becomes a strength. I can have my own operating system that is just the way I want it, but it still runs Docker and Stream ( as examples ).

Think of the cereal aisle at the grocery store. If I want to introduce a new cereal ( or pasta sauce or whatever ), coming up with one that has 10 flavours is not going to work ( without immense marketing muscle ). None of them will sell well enough and probably all of them will get pulled from store shelves. I would be better off launching one. However, once I have a mature market position, I can have not just the regular version but the whole wheat version, the honey nut version, the cinnamon version, the holiday version , etc. They will collectively make each other stronger and all potentially sell well ( again, think pasta sauce flavours if that makes more sense to you ).

This is why there was The Tesla Roadster at first and now there are the Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, and maybe the Cyber Truck.

Linux is not a “product” though. It is an Open Source program. While any given Linux distributor ( distribution ) may think like I outline above, collectively the Linux market is fragmented. Linux is a mix of commercial, community, and individual interests all scratching their own itch.

I am super interested in Chimera Linux right now and fairly negative towards Ubuntu. This makes me part of your problem though. Chimera Linux makes “Linux” less predictable, more confusing, and more frustrating for new and potential users. Pushing everybody to Ubuntu would be a better market strategy. That said, I personally want to use Chimera Linux and, while I say that I want Linux to succeed, I also secretly hope that Ubuntu will fail. Chimera Linux uses a package manager used by only one other Linux ( and in fact they use different, incompatible versions of it so really they are unique ). Clearly, my priorities are mid-aligned with the premise of your question.

So, what does “justified” mean in the Linux space.

LeFantome, 10 months ago

I would echo that but suggest going to EndevourOS. EOS is a lot easier to install for normal people. What you get is insanely close to pure Arch.

I agree that running Arch is easier than people think. It is very stable. Also, because everything you could want is in the repositories ( and up-to-date ) it does not become a spaghetti like mess over time. No more third-party repos. No more PPAs.

LeFantome, 10 months ago

I have the various latest release of EndeavourOS running on a 2008 iMac and a Dell laptop that I cannot remember the model of that is even older.

LeFantome, 10 months ago

Great to see this perspective from a developer and it totally makes sense. I think the Firefox browser has encountered essentially the exact same thing. Linux support may be a strategic advantage for devs that embrace it.

That does not mean that every developer will find the same thing though. Proton and Unity have many, many Linux specific ( or at least non-Windows ) bugs I am sure. It would be easy to bemoan these. It takes a different kind of mind-set to see working around these kinds of issues as valuable. Even rarer are devs that take the opportunity to address bugs in the underlying tech ( outside the game - eg. in Proton ).

I suspect though that many non-Windows bugs are actually due to defects in the game. They are just not manifesting yet or in the same way. The fact that Linux exposes these is again an opportunity in the way the author of this post points out.

In other words, cross-platform deployment is an opportunity for a stronger product. Access to an engaged community with strong communication skills and technical chops is a bonus.

Hopefully more devs start to see the world this way. Great article.

LeFantome, 10 months ago

What? Please no. XFCE is its own thing. It is not old GNOME. They are both GTK based so a little collaboration on apps they both need would be interesting. Beyond that, they are different projects—like GNOME and KDE. BTW, there is also an “old” KDE called Trinity.

LeFantome, 10 months ago

Why do you say that?

LeFantome, 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

I completely agree.

An OS is defined by its ecosystem ( applications, users, and philosophy ). Everybody knows what an actual Linux distribution is and the kinds of desktop environments ( eg. GNOME, KDE, XFCE ) and applications that Linux implies ( eg. Docker, Podman, Emacs, GIMP, OBS, LibreOffice ). It does not matter if the C library is Glibc or MUSL. It does not matter if things were compiled with GCC or Clang. It does not matter who wrote the version of ‘ls’ installed. It is not confusing when somebody tells you they are using “Linux” on the desktop, the server, or the cloud. You know what they mean.

Saying GNU / Linux does not add any clarity in my view and could be confusing or wrong. If you use Alpine in the cloud, you are using Linux ( very clear ) but not GNU / Linux. If you are using Void on your desktop, you are using Linux ( but maybe not Glibc ). Is one version of Void Linux called GNU / Linux and the other one isn’t? It is not a useful label other than politically.

Android and ChromeOS use the Linux kernel but are not Linux distributions by any useful use of that term. If I switch you from Void to Arch, you could use it for hours without noticing the change. You might not notice until you went to update software. If I moved you to Android or ChromeOS, you would certainly notice right away. In some ways, Windows is a more similar environment than Android is.

If I say, “I use Linux”, you do not have to ask me if I mean Android or if I have a Chromebook. People that don’t “know” that these other systems use the Linux kernel would never make that mistake. The “confusion” is artificial.

As a non-Linux example, is there anybody that is confused that the XBox uses the Windows kernel? Even if I say “I game on Windows”, would you honestly wonder if I meant XBox? Or would it be super obvious that I meant on a PC?

If I say, “I game on Linux”, you again know that I do not mean Android or ChromeOS ( unless I am purposely trying to be arrogant or funny about it ). You might ask if I am using a Stream Deck but, guess what, the Deck also boots into KDE. It really is Linux.

My Nest thermometer and my IP camera both run the Linux kernel as well. Do we need a special name for them? No. Nobody is truthfully confused by that either. Would we call them GNU / Linux even if they use Glibc? I hope not. So what does GNU / Linux even refer to outside of the political meaning?

LeFantome, 10 months ago

That is a great explanation of what vertical integration is. I am not sure I see why it is inherently bad.

I guess a large vertically integrated option could make it hard for alternatives to compete. That is more of a monopoly problem than a vertical integration issue though.

I do agree with interoperability requirements though. I see nothing wrong with Apple offering a fully vertically integrated product. The issue is when I cannot run my own OS on the hardware, my own apps on their OS, or interact with hardware from other vendors.

LeFantome, 10 months ago

One of my first memories with Linux was getting the same X config from a Sun Workstation at school onto my Linux box at home. Just seeing similar behaviour made it seem like my computer was suddenly more powerful. In the 90’s, I got an actual copy of Solaris ( in the box ) and I felt like one of the global elite. One of the first things I did after making real money was buy a Sun Ultra.

Now, I can essentially get Solaris for free and I cannot even be bothered to install it. I want to say that the hardware still interests me but honestly I have no desire to use that either. It would be more of a decoration and act of preservation, like a classic painting hanging on the wall.

If anything, the fun project these days might be to create a WiFi card that had a PicoPi or MilkV board on it running Linux as the firmware. Open Source has really changed the game. What makes old hardware fun is modding it to do stuff it never could. The software that is fun to run on old hardware is something still being actively developed—again, maybe Linux.

LeFantome, 10 months ago

I suspect it is a combination of its being free, working well on older hardware, and the tech literacy in India.

Software development and engineering are important aspects of the Indian economy. Linux is arguably the best platform for that kind of work, especially in the cloud. Tech support of those kinds of systems require the same skills.

Given how well Linux runs on older machines, I consider low Linux penetration a hallmark of rich countries.

In my own household, Linux goes on all the older hardware ( including Macs ). That has really extended the length of time before hardware needs to be replaced. It also means that, over time, the percentage of active equipment using Linux has increased.

LeFantome, 10 months ago

Think of the opportunity Linux creates in a place like India. If you have some smarts and a good work ethic, Linux and a machine from 2010 allows you to run the very latest software used by tech giants all over the world.

You can self-teach a huge number of skills on Linux and become deeply familiar with the REAL software that professionals are using—even in the West. One you know your stuff, you can leverage that into a job that pays fantastic money by local standards.

If you want to be a developer, you can build a GitHub portfolio or participate in Open Source projects.

If you are more entrepreneurial, you can post videos showing others how to use the skills you have acquired. These not only make a fantastic resume but they can generate advertising income. What may seem like a poor return on time in richer countries can provide important income in poorer ones.

If you have not tried it, you may be amazed that you can run up-to-the minute current versions of Docker, Kubernetes, databases, dev in any language ( even .NET ), and almost any other in-demand technology on really old Linux hardware.

Beyond hard technology skills, a Linux computer is just a fabulous productivity tool. You can get hardware and software to help manage your business that you perhaps could never afford otherwise. If you are a creative professional, you have access to amazing tools. If you are a photographer, you have pro level tools. If you are an architect or engineer, same thing. Again, we can say that some of these are not “professional” but I bet they do the job in markets where few can afford expensive software.

About the only things that push the hardware envelope these days are video editing, AI, and gaming. Even these work better than you may think though. It will take you longer but you can do pretty good video editing on 2010 HW for example.