this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
21 points (100.0% liked)

Free and Open Source Software

17911 readers
39 users here now

If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cyd@vlemmy.net 3 points 1 year ago

It's GPL compliant, so there's no problem. It's a good thing for companies to explore a variety of business models that are FLOSS-compatible.

[–] iuseit@iusearchlinux.fyi 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Come someone smart tell me if this violates GPL?

[–] ozoned@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wonder how this affects direct RHEL copies such as Rocky or Alma.

I was at Red Hat when they moved CentOS to Stream and a lot of us were VERY unhappy about it. Kind of knew the writing was on the wall for them when Red Hat hugged them closer.

I don't get this move, other than to fight direct copies of RHEL, such as Rocky or even Oracle. This might push those folks to have to follow CentOS stream, which is NOT RHEL.

Though I don't know how the copies do their builds now.

[–] ipha@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Shouldn't affect them much, it just means they'll need a single RHEL subscription.

[–] caron@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It would count as an unauthorized use of the subscription, so Red Hat wouldn't keep doing business with them, and wouldn't receive new binaries.

[–] ipha@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

That sounds like a giant GPL violation if sources are provided under the condition that you don't use them.

[–] ozoned@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wonder if a dev subscription is enough.

[–] ipha@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

Legally they must provide source to anyone they provide binaries to.

load more comments
view more: next ›