Red Hat controversy

[Bernie Hoefer]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

(Full disclosure for anybody who did not already know:  I am an employee of Red Hat.  ***But I do not speak for it.  The below are my own, personal opinions.***)

On 2023-07-02 02:20 UTC-05:00, David Spoelstra wrote:
===
> Three interesting articles about what Red Hat is doing:
===

Hi, David!  I was wondering if/when this topic would come up in our group!  :-)

For those who do not know what David is talking about, Red Hat will cease releasing RHEL source to git.centos.org:

  Furthering The Evolution Of CentOS Stream
  June 21, 2023
  https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-stream


===
> 4 Ways Red Hat's Source Code Restrictions Affect Other Distros:
> https://www.makeuseof.com/ways-red-hat-source-code-restrictions-affect-other-distros/
===

Thanks for sharing that article, David.  Some of my personal thoughts on what it contains:

=+=+=+
} The code used in CentOS Stream is unfortunately unstable and
} actively in development, but it will provide valuable insight for
} third-party developers going forward.
=+=+=+

As we learned during Peter Larsen's April 2023 CINLUG talk, CentOS is not "unstable".  Yes, it is a development stream of the next RHEL point release, but it not unstable.

  Before a package is formally introduced into CentOS
  Stream, it undergoes a battery of tests and checks — both
  automated and manual — to ensure it meets the stringent
  standards for inclusion in RHEL. Updates posted to Stream
  are identical to those posted to the unreleased minor
  version of RHEL. The aim? For CentOS Stream to be as
  fundamentally stable as RHEL itself.[1]

[1] https://blog.centos.org/2021/12/introducing-centos-stream-9/


=+=+=+
} With community goodwill rapidly deteriorating, it seems that many
} developers are contemplating the idea of separating their work from
} RHEL entirely.
=+=+=+

Red Hat's announcement has caused controversy -- and the dust has yet to settle.  Loss of the community's goodwill is a significant concern.  However, I'm hearing of more people who had one opinion when the change was 1st announced, but have now shifted their view, or softened it.  So "rapidly deteriorating" is a bit of an exaggeration, in my opinion.

I've heard that this podcast explains Red Hat's position very well:

  Ask Noah Show 343 | Red Hat's Source Code with Mike McGrath
  June 27th, 2023 
  https://podcast.asknoahshow.com/343


=+=+=+
} Just as the discontinuation of free RHEL and CentOS caused
} controversy
=+=+=+

Huh?  I wonder if the author confused Red Hat's 2004 discontinuation of Red Hat Linux (RHL) in favor of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in making that statement.

Otherwise, the author is wrong.  Red Hat (still) offers these for free:

+ Red Hat Developer Subscription For Individuals

+ Red Hat Developer Subscription For Teams

+ Red Hat Universal Base Image (UBI)


===
> ROCKY STRIKES BACK AT RED HAT:
> https://hackaday.com/2023/06/30/rocky-strikes-back-at-red-hat/
===

This article links to Rocky Linux's press release where they claim to have found a way around Red Hat's license agreement by either using the UBI or using RHEL images provided by cloud providers.

Using the UBI may, for now, provide Rocky Linux a way to end run around Red Hat's license agreement.  I state this because it does appear that I can pull down the UBI from hub.docker.com without agreeing to anything.  The UBI is a container running a stripped-down version of RHEL.

Thus, my *guess* is that Red Hat will limit source code downloads through the UBI to only the software provided in the UBI -- not the source code for the tens of thousands of other packages that make RHEL.

(I have to admit that I have no experience & very little knowledge of the UBI.  I find it hard to believe that one can get access to all RHEL packages through it; but I will assume one can if Rocky Linux is claiming that they can.)

As for the 2nd method:  I also find it hard to believe that pay-as-you-go cloud users of RHEL are not presented with the same (or substantially similar) license agreement as a direct Red Hat customer.  My limited experience with RHEL in the cloud does not bear that out.  So I guess we will see.


===
> The Suicide Attempt by Red Hat:
> https://news.itsfoss.com/red-hat-fiasco/
===

I enjoyed reading this opinion piece.  I appreciate the author disclosing that he uses Red Hat's Developer Subscription For Individuals and stating why he does not believe IBM was behind this act.  I also found his piece to be pretty balanced.

That doesn't mean I agree with him, though.  :-)

I note that in every question the author asks the reader (example:  "What did online tutorials use to teach about RHEL?") he answers, every time, with "CentOS" with the word "Stream" in strike-through.  The funny thing is that the answers to those questions *most certainly could be* "CentOS Stream"!

I write that with all sincerity.  When I 1st obtained my Red Hat Certified Engineer (RHCE) certification, RHEL 6 was the new hotness and Red Hat did not have the free offerings that it does, today.  I used CentOS to study for my RHCE at home.  If the situation was the same, today, I would use CentOS Stream.

RHEL minor releases come out ~6 months.  RHEL 9.2 is currently the latest.  That means the current CentOS Stream is what will be RHEL 9.3 in the fall.  CentOS Stream is not a "RHEL beta" and it carries the same binary compatibly and features (or lack thereof) within a major release number (in this example, "RHEL 9") as what the RHEL product does.

The author shares his opinion that the lack of clones will decrease the number of people exposed to the RHEL ecosystem, thus there will be less people developing for RHEL and innovating with RHEL.  I thought the *exact same thing* in 2004 when Red Hat discontinued RHL in favor of RHEL.

Red Hat suggested that RHL users not wanting to pay for RHEL should start using Fedora Linux.  I perceived Fedora as a unacceptable beta of RHEL, that it was nothing like RHEL and I didn't want to support Red Hat if they were abandoning the community like that.

So, I used OpenSuSE for a few years.  I switched back after seeing:

+ how successful Red Hat was at growing the ecosystem -- gaining
  partners like Intel, AMD, HP and Dell;

+ how they were still contributing to the upstream community and
  everybody was benefiting;

+ how Red Hat was defending the community when Microsoft was claiming
  that GNU/Linux users needed a license to use their patents.
  (Something that Novell/SuSE supported by renewing a deal with
  Microsoft for hundreds of millions of dollars.)

This current controversy about Red Hat no longer going above & beyond the GPL by providing source code to the general public has, for me, similar shades of that 2004 controversy of discontinuing RHL for RHEL.  I did not think it at the time, but I now see that the Free & Open Source community benefited from that move.  I think we will all benefit from this 2023 move, too.


Let's discuss this more at Wednesday's meeting!!!  (And any other topics that people want to bring up.)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EARECAB0WIQQepgJdnfsiTmnUzg5yQaapRGpvkwUCZKIxogAKCRByQaapRGpv
k02FAJ919e1VUszm5hWm9YBkoDn0QqwUhwCdFFbB4dNtL+QUKa+dBF2T7Y/CSRE=
=eKt0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----