Am 30.06.23 um 16:05 schrieb Sérgio Basto:
On Thu, 2023-06-29 at 23:57 +0000, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote:
Hey!
On Thu, 2023-06-29 at 19:12 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 6/26/23 18:47, Jeff Law wrote:
What Red Hat has done may be technically legal and perhaps good for its business.
Something I'm having trouble with is Red Hat's position that you can choose to be a customer or to exercise your rights under the GPL, but you cannot be both.
The thing is, many people are learning this only now, because things indeed have become tougher for people who prepare the RHEL rebuilds, but this is not new. _Nothing_ in the service agreement or in any other legal document has changed since last week, the exact same terms have been applicable to the extended-support branches since the beginning of RHEL. In fact, as Frank pointed out elsewhere, this is something that other companies have been doing for decades as well.
In my opinion, people haven't complained about service agreements because, till recent changes, RHEL sources were available publicly. The only important contract was the open-source license of the software. Now we have both the license of the software and the service agreement.
First I think this a storm in a teacup . Second Centos Stream is the RHEL without branding, people in general didn't like the idea of Centos be updated before RHEL , when Centos was updated after RHEL , but that was the main change. After whats happened was that not all was updated first in Centos Stream like kernel (we saw updates with ABI breakage first on RHEL ... ). This announce is mainly , as I read, saying that exceptions will be over and all will be first on Centos Stream and than in RHEL
Someone says or writes it, other reads it, but the reality is that in CentOS Stream are always continuously missing parts of RHEL. I do not complain about it, but its annoying when the narratives that everything is there are spreaded.