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

  • UrbenLegend@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Which means it’s not bug-for-bug which is quite frankly critical to any dev, enterprise or otherwise…They may be targeting other distros, but it affects all developers who just want to test their applications.

    With the free RHEL licenses, I don’t think developers targetting RHEL are going to be affected at all by this, short of having to signup for an extra account. I also don’t think that there’s going to be many situations where a dev would accidentally redistribute in a way that’s so detrimental to RedHat’s business that it gets their license suspended.

    You’re right that its mainly targeted at downstream distros and that’s where I think RedHat has a point. I think that it’s entirely fair for RedHat to be annoyed that someone can build a RHEL bug-for-bug compatible Linux distro and then sell support licenses off of it, which is literally RHEL’s business model.

    That’s just my two cents. There’s really not many ways for a company to survive entirely off of open-source development like RedHat does and if we start saying that bug-for-bug compatible versions of their software have to exist, then we’ve essentially turned their business model into donations and it would lead to them dying anyways.

    Don’t get me wrong, I am not entirely happy about RedHat’s changes, but I also don’t see anyone in this thread suggesting a viable alternative for RedHat to pursue and they’re just piling on the hate. It’s like saying, “Hey RedHat, sorry you’re dying. Thanks for all your hard work, okay good luck, bye.”

    • virr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      They weren’t dying before, but they be might now.

      The problem is that the value RHEL provides. For my PERSONAL projects the value is less than the cost of renewing my free license every year from them. For a company shipping a system that will in the field for a decade with minimal updates is completely that must work with minimal downtime the value they are providing is higher than what they charge.

      That difference in value by users requires RedHat to balance costs the they can charge against maximizing numbers of users versus income. The catch they are running into is some people they provide little value to will just leave, but those people were providing a lot of value for customers. 100 or so ansible roles that your customers were using is suddenly no longer going to be supported, and eventually likely not to work. That is likely a net negative for value provided to customers and goes against the spirit of open source.

      The people using Rocky or Alma are unlikely to see cost of RHEL being worth it. So they will go elsewhere. But having a bigger number of users running on those systems provided value and network effect for RedHat even though they are not paying. That indirect benefit is now lost.

      RedHat obviously feels all of that does not provide enough value to justify the cost of possible lost sales. I think they are wrong, but maybe they are right.

      Maybe they are violating the GPL which explicitly says you cannot add limitations for users sharing code. From here it sure looks questionable at best, intentionally breaking the license at worst. That will have to be left for someone else to decide.