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

  • UrbenLegend@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • underisk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • UrbenLegend@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • underisk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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.