4 points

Come someone smart tell me if this violates GPL?

permalink
report
reply
4 points

No.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It’s GPL compliant, so there’s no problem. It’s a good thing for companies to explore a variety of business models that are FLOSS-compatible.

permalink
report
reply
3 points

Wonder how this affects direct RHEL copies such as Rocky or Alma.

I was at Red Hat when they moved CentOS to Stream and a lot of us were VERY unhappy about it. Kind of knew the writing was on the wall for them when Red Hat hugged them closer.

I don’t get this move, other than to fight direct copies of RHEL, such as Rocky or even Oracle. This might push those folks to have to follow CentOS stream, which is NOT RHEL.

Though I don’t know how the copies do their builds now.

permalink
report
reply
3 points

Shouldn’t affect them much, it just means they’ll need a single RHEL subscription.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

It would count as an unauthorized use of the subscription, so Red Hat wouldn’t keep doing business with them, and wouldn’t receive new binaries.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

That sounds like a giant GPL violation if sources are provided under the condition that you don’t use them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Wonder if a dev subscription is enough.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Legally they must provide source to anyone they provide binaries to.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

No changes to Fedora then?

permalink
report
reply

Free and Open Source Software

!foss@beehaw.org

Create post

If it’s free and open source and it’s also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Community stats

  • 823

    Monthly active users

  • 868

    Posts

  • 13K

    Comments