this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2023
611 points (98.4% liked)

Linux

48334 readers
616 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

An exceptionally well explained rant that I find myself in total agreement with.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your logic would apply if they were entirely separate pieces of software, but RHEL is just essentially snapshots of CentOS Stream.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Those snapshots are not CentOS Stream. You are not running CentOS Stream, in the state in which it is provided, when you run a RHEL release. They arent entirely separate, but that's exaggerating the claim and not what I'm arguing. The people who are using RHEL as provided are not able to redistribute the thing which they are using.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whether the GPL says the redistributed code has to be a bug-for-bug compatible copy of RHEL is up for lawyers to decide. In my mind, saying "I am not running Software Foobar, I am running Software Foobar released a few months ago" seems like a silly distinction in this case, especially when talking about the health of FOSS.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Once again, their adherence to the letter of the GPL is certainly up for debate, I said as much at the start.

Their violation of its intent, however, is not. They are putting up roadblocks, however trivial or insignificant you seem to believe they are, to limit your freedom in redistributing they code they are providing. Period. This controversy would not exist if they weren’t.