[Raion]

I'm sad to see this. Even though I'm not an advocate of GNU/Linux I was certified for RHEL 6/7 and off and on did jobs with it until 2019. I always thought it was one of the more well designed distros, besides systemd, but maybe that was Stockholm syndrome. Either way, it was never that ugly mess Debian was under the surface, or Arch. 

For those who want skinny and don't know what's going on they have basically closed off their public repositories for rhel in an attempt to cut off Rocky and Alma as downstream replacements of CentOS (which is dead, replaced with rolling release CentOS stream)

The result is that these distros are having to go through some strange ways to get copies of the latest source, such as using cloud installations of RHEL and copying tarballs off. That may violate EULAs, though which effectively makes RHEL closed source. It's one of those strange legal loopholes that cannot be overstated as being supremely moronic. 

Anyways this is not something that I ever thought I would see but now that I see it I'm quite disappointed.

[vishnu]

I'm sad to see this. Even though I'm not an advocate of GNU/Linux I was certified for RHEL 6/7 and off and on did jobs with it until 2019. I always thought it was one of the more well designed distros, besides systemd, but maybe that was Stockholm syndrome. Either way, it was never that ugly mess Debian was under the surface, or Arch. 

For those who want skinny and don't know what's going on they have basically closed off their public repositories for rhel in an attempt to cut off Rocky and Alma as downstream replacements of CentOS (which is dead, replaced with rolling release CentOS stream)

The result is that these distros are having to go through some strange ways to get copies of the latest source, such as using cloud installations of RHEL and copying tarballs off. That may violate EULAs, though which effectively makes RHEL closed source. It's one of those strange legal loopholes that cannot be overstated as being supremely moronic. 

Anyways this is not something that I ever thought I would see but now that I see it I'm quite disappointed.

Does RHEL come with EULA protected commercial software? I did not KNOW dat! I appreciate what Red Hat's employees have contributed to the kernel, but as a distribution I wouldn't use it even if the alternative was a firing squad...

[johnnym]

I'm sad to see this.

[...]

Anyways this is not something that I ever thought I would see but now that I see it I'm quite disappointed.

Don't be sad. This is "just" the next step after terminating the original CentOS. It's now the offspring that is targetted. The question is, if Red Hat - or is it IBM - manages to prevail with their attitude: i.e. keeping the community as free beta testers for their enterprise OS and scare off the rest. But this move can also backfire onto RHEL itself. The damage is already there, people won't forget those moves mid-release and make different decisions regarding the OS of their choice in the future. There is a stench now on RHEL.

But this move could also be the chance to finally "create" a Community ENTerprise OS made by the community and backed by a foundation and provide support for it from 3rd party companies that are not directly involved in the development. Everybody (incl. companies) can use it for free, but if you want to be covered you get support from one of these 3rd party companies. E.g. a little like Rocky Linux (OS) and RESF (foundation) and CIQ (3rd party company providing support).

SUSE and maybe also Oracle seem to want to create a RHEL fork in this regard. At first I found the idea problematic. But on second thought the only thing that's problematic about it is, that it comes from SUSE and Oracle (or insert any company here).

If such a community enterprise OS could get going big way in public science infrastructures, institutions, (super)computing centers, etc. around the world, making RHEL or SLES a second choice, that would be nice to see. 

---

Does RHEL come with EULA protected commercial software?

No, I don't think so. they just mistook the GPL for the MIT or BSD license and thought nobody would notice that they are acting against the idea behind the GPL (v2).

Did you know that when you have a contract with them and you want to excercise your GPL rights, they can cancel the contract? The SFC has a good article on the GPL and Red Hat.

[vishnu]

Despite all the legal bickering, the GPL isn't really that complicated. If you want to use GNU software for your own purposes, and you make changes to that software, that's fine. But if you make changes to that software and offer those changes as a commercial product, you are required to make the changes (source code) available freely to the public. Also, you (as a modifier of GPL code) are free to charge what ever amount you wish for physical media, which back in the day would have been tape. From what little I know about the FSF (I really don't pay any attention to it), they have a legal team that's ready to pounce on any organization that violates the GPL, whether willingly or by mistake.

EDIT: Now I admit that's a dichotomy that's always plagued the GPL; if its source code is freely available (and this would be prior to the availability that there is now via the Internet), then you (they, the FSF) get to charge the big chashola to anyone who wants a tape of the software? Presumably, if you showed up at the FSF office with your own blank rail of tape and asked them to copy the GNU software to it, that would be without charge? I have no idea...

[robespierre]

Despite all the legal bickering, the GPL isn't really that complicated. If you want to use GNU software for your own purposes, and you make changes to that software, that's fine. But if you make changes to that software and offer those changes as a commercial product, you are required to make the changes (source code) available freely to the public. Also, you (as a modifier of GPL code) are free to charge what ever amount you wish for physical media, which back in the day would have been tape. From what little I know about the FSF (I really don't pay any attention to it), they have a legal team that's ready to pounce on any organization that violates the GPL, whether willingly or by mistake.

The Software Conservancy is exactly that "legal team", and johhnym posted a link from them outlining the issues. There is no requirement in the GPL (version 2 or 3) that requires source code to be available to the public. Only the party to which the compiled code is conveyed has the right to receive the source code (and there is a 3 year sunset period). This is section 6 of the GPL3. Additionally, what Red Hat does is to punish you for exercising that right by terminating your support contracts. And they are under no obligation to sell RHEL to someone who they know will base a community distribution on it.

The existence of RHEL as a highly funded, multinational corporation made to profit from open source is a sign that some of the fundamental ideas behind copyleft are flawed.

EDIT: Now I admit that's a dichotomy that's always plagued the GPL; if its source code is freely available (and this would be prior to the availability that there is now via the Internet), then you (they, the FSF) get to charge the big chashola to anyone who wants a tape of the software? Presumably, if you showed up at the FSF office with your own blank rail of tape and asked them to copy the GNU software to it, that would be without charge? I have no idea...

There were companies producing CDROMs of "freeware" (including MIT, BSD, and GPL licensed source code) to make it available to those without fast internet connections. One of the oldest was called "Prime Time Freeware" which cost $50 and included a book of printed READMEs and a CDROM set.

[johnnym]

The Software Conservancy is exactly that "legal team", and johhnym posted a link from them outlining the issues. There is no requirement in the GPL (version 2 or 3) that requires source code to be available to the public. Only the party to which the compiled code is conveyed has the right to receive the source code (and there is a 3 year sunset period). This is section 6 of the GPL3.

The fact that Red Hat and also SUSE - "pretend" to - not give away RPMs without contract is maybe not because someone could use their distros for free then, but so that they can limit the amount of recipients, as per 6's "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.". So to allow them to restrict access to the sources to paying customers.
But the thing is, that both give away free versions of their OS for testing - which is redistribution, isn't it, or are the programs in the free versions any different than in the non-free versions? I don't think so.

Additionally, what Red Hat does is to punish you for exercising that right by terminating your support contracts.

Which is already against "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." from 6. With "Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it." from 5 and whole 4, Red Hat is already in the sh*t and could loose their rights on parts of their OS given by the GPL as per "Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License." from 4.

And they are under no obligation to sell RHEL to someone who they know will base a community distribution on it.

Sure, but as long as you can get free copies the redistribution has already happened. Same when you are using a cloud instance from some reseller. The problem is, that the distinct parts of RHEL are from a limited amount of people with a limited amount of mood to sue Red Hat for their non-compliance and with an even more limited amount of funds to cover the costs for such a case.

The existence of RHEL as a highly funded, multinational corporation made to profit from open source is a sign that some of the fundamental ideas behind copyleft are flawed.

I think the ideas are not per se flawed - unless the idea was to get to the current situation through it - but the execution is done poorly as it seems to allow companies to profit from the unpaid work of millions of people. It's similar to those public-private partnerships in Germany: e.g. let the community build the Autobahn and then give it away to a company to charge for its use. We're not there yet (in Germany), but it's clear that this is where it's headed. Could Red Hat be were it is today without the Autobahn parts built by others earlier?

[robespierre]

I'm sure that they would not have made it their business model without what they regard as competent legal advice. It may be contrary to the intentions of the GPL, but they can argue that they are not "restricting" the rights under the GPL, but only "responding" by taking co-ordinate actions in other contracts. They can argue that to interpret the GPL to restrict those other contracts is in restraint of trade. In most jurisdictions, the language of a contract is interpreted most strictly against the party who wrote it: for the GPL that would be the FSF and co. So being the FSF, you don't have the luxury of arguing what you really meant to say, you are bound by what you did say. And the FSF chose to emphasize "freedom" instead of economic decentralization in its written text and apologia. That's what I meant by "fundamental ideas behind copyleft are flawed."

[johnnym]

In most jurisdictions, the language of a contract is interpreted most strictly against the party who wrote it: for the GPL that would be the FSF and co. So being the FSF, you don't have the luxury of arguing what you really meant to say, you are bound by what you did say.

Interesting. The contract is still between the original licensor (creator of a GPL software that is now part of RHEL) and Red Hat. Though the licensor used the GPL verbatim, the FSF is not a contractor. So in this case the contract is still interpreted against the - obviously weaker party of the - original creator of that GPL software and not against a multi-billion Dollar company that wants to profit from the work of millions but not be bound by the specifics of that contract if it hinders them making some extra?

Maybe the flaw lies in the jurisdiction(s)...

[vishnu]

First off, IANAL, but I've been paying a mildly interested amount of attention to GPL issues for, golly, 30 years at least (I know, I'm one of those old dudes), and I'll also say upfront that I am NOT a fan of the GPL, I think the MIT license got it correct, if you want your code to be used by as many organizations and/or people, or whatever, as possible, then that's the license to use. As far as my limited understanding extends, and what others who are far more knowledgeable than me, have always said, is that the GPL is "infectious," in that if you (if "you" are a company or an organization or whatever) use GPL code in your closed source product, you have violated the GPL. Seems pretty simple to me. But with all the arguing and legal wrangling, as far as I know, the FSF has never been able to extract vast fortunes from corporate GPL violators. In my humble and probably not all that knowledgeable opinion, if there's UNIX-like code that would contribute substantially to a closed source product, the BSD code is probably at least as good as the GNU code, if not better. Okay, dismounting my high-horse now...

[johnnym]

[...] if there's UNIX-like code that would contribute substantially to a closed source product, the BSD code is probably at least as good as the GNU code, if not better. Okay, dismounting my high-horse now...

Who cares about closed source products?