mackca

According to Red Hat it is. If you don't believe them you can get a Developer subscription to get a RHEL ISO to compare with a CentOS Stream ISO. I imagine a lot of people, myself included, would be interested in the analysis of that.

RHEL source according to Red Hat is CentOS Stream. If the source of RHEL is CentOS Stream then how is it irrelevant? Red Hat cannot deprive you of your right to sources and to redistribute them under the GPL. But Red Hat can also determine who they want to do business with.

RHEL source according to Red Hat is CentOS Stream. CentOS Stream is publicly available. Red Hat cannot deprive you of your right to sources and to redistribute them under the GPL. But Red Hat can also determine who they want to do business with.

According to Red Hat the source of RHEL is publicly available on CentOS Stream Gitlab, without a EULA.

Isn't that the whole issue here? Customers and people with Developer licenses can get the exact RHEL binaries "behind the paywall". And even then if something is upstream does that not mean that the same code flows down stream?

That repo would undercut the entire purpose of Rocky, which in their wiki state

> Rocky Linux is a community enterprise Operating System designed to be 100% bug-for-bug compatible with Enterprise Linux. [1]

[1] https://wiki.rockylinux.org/

> playing whack-a-mole with rebuilders Are they playing whack-a-mole? Or was this one change that people are arguing (and Red Hat's lawyers seem to think) is within their rights under the GPL ? It will be whack-a-mole if Red Hat tries to stop supporting VPS instances or stop updating UBI, both of a 1% chance of going away.

I am amazed that multiple OSS lawyers gave you the same answer and you still don't believe them.

> (what Fortune 500 company would like to have their Red Hat servers all go dead because some employee downloaded sources and uploaded them somewhere?)

What does this mean? Are you implying that RHEL has some sort of kill switch per customer embedded in it's source code that someone could exploit? I am not following this train of thought at all.

downstreaming ? How is the open source social contract anymore than making source code available?

So Red Hat is saying that CentOS Stream is how RHEL is built, you are saying it is not. Can you show the difference in packages from CentOS Stream and RHEL? Rocky says they pull packages from CentOS Stream, and with their project goal remaining 1:1 binary compatibility then that must be the case.

But according to Red Hat in the interview linked below all of RHEL is built from CentOS Stream, is having the source code available in CentOS Stream Gitlab not adhering to GPL ?

Because it is extra effort on Red Hat's part that corporate backed projects can compensate for if they choose to ?

All I heard in that segment was Red Hat stopped taking extra steps to debrand and push packages from RHEL, and now clones will have to build their software from CentOS Stream. I did not hear anything about additional actions that Red Hat will take or plans to take. Did I miss something?

Here's a thought, maybe Red Hat was being honest when they said that they were not under an obligation to make it easy for rebuilders, and that's it? Maybe they weren't out to immediately kill the clones because they know that they can't? We have actually heard very little communication from Red Hat most of it has been speculation from people on what they might or could do, but as you point out there are ways around the changes Red Hat made.

Honestly this from this post Rocky conflicts with the "RHEL is closed source/proprietary/paywalled" narrative that people are trying to push. If RHEL was truly any of those things Rocky wouldn't have been able to continue on, but they were able to quickly find a solution, though to me it seems a bit hacky. If Rocky is pulling packages from the supposedly untested, beta of RHEL CentOS Stream, and UBI and some EC2 instance, why would I use that over something that was build cohesively in one place like Stream?