What does this mean for Alma and Rocky? My understanding is that they're basically source clones of RHEL with all branding changes.
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
22 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37716 readers
305 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The devs could buy a RHEL license and get the sources, which are still under free license, that way.
Maybe, but if the license contract terms prohibit redistribution RedHat could just terminate the agreement. They couldn’t stop you from doing it the first time, but you’d be blocked off on that account.
Isn't that against GPL? You as a user are allowed to do whatever with the software — modify it, redistribute it etc.
I’m definitely not a lawyer, so grain of salt. By the GPL you are allowed to re-distribute the source, but Redhat can also refuse to do further business with you and terminate the account. By not distributing the GPL licensed code unless you are a customer (and under a no-distribution contract), they can just choose not to distribute the software to you and thus not have to give you source.
Yep, and RedHat would be asses to try, it's not like they made Linux.
license contract terms prohibit redistribution
Not a problem, Redhat does not own (all of) the software they are redistributing. They would have to legally relicense the software they are redistributing themselves, which would be a massive, if not impossible, undertaking in many cases.