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
> For all the people that are complaining only now that the free
beer
> part
> is taken away, I can't help thinking that it's a bit disingenuous
> to
> make it about "free as in freedom", when that clause has existed
> forever.
What do you mean by "free beer part"? Isn't open-source software free
of charge? Does anybody pay for it?
The question is if RHEL software is still open-source or closed-
source.
At least if I look at the OSI's [1] definition of Open Source, the
situation isn't clear to me.
>
> (As an aside, the service agreement also mentions that any open
> source
> license overrides the service agreement if needed. So by
> definition
> this might be void but it certainly is not a GPL violation).
>
Yeah, it's hard to say which rules of service agreement are
overwriten
by software licenses. Especially that there are quite a few licenses
shipped with the distribution.
Cheers,
Piotr
[1] OSI Open Source Definition
Introduction
Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code.
The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with
the
following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not
restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a
component of an aggregate software distribution containing
programs
from several different sources. The license shall not require a
royalty or other fee for such sale.
2. Source Code
The program must
include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as
well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not
distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized
means
of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable
reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without
charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a
programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated
source
code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a
preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
3. Derived Works
The
license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
original software.
4. Integrity of The Author’s Source Code
The
license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
modified
form only if the license allows the distribution of “patch files”
with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at
build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of
software built from modified source code. The license may require
derived works to carry a different name or version number from the
original software.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The
license must not discriminate against any person or group of
persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license
must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
program from being used in a business, or from being used for
genetic research.
7. Distribution of License
The rights attached to
the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed
without the need for execution of an additional license by those
parties.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
The rights
attached to the program must not depend on the program’s being
part
of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted
from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of
the program’s license, all parties to whom the program is
redistributed should have the same rights as those that are
granted
in conjunction with the original software distribution.
9. License
Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place
restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the
licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that
all
other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source
software.
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the
license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of
interface.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
--
Sérgio M. B.