AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
Posted Jun 25, 2023 19:01 UTC (Sun) by richarson (subscriber, #74226)In reply to: AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change by pizza
Parent article: AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
And yes, I know and I'm grateful for all of the development that RH does and all they already contribute, but that's exactly why this action stings so much.
If such a good FOSS company is willing to do this kind of thing to cripple its competitors, what can we expect from others?
Posted Jun 25, 2023 19:23 UTC (Sun)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (30 responses)
The benefit was not one-sided and you well know it.
> If such a good FOSS company is willing to do this kind of thing to cripple its competitors, what can we expect from others?
This really shines a light on the true costs of F/OSS integration efforts, and how nearly nobody is willing to pay for the value they keep saying they want.
But to answer your question, you have only to look at Canonical's ongoing monetizing shenanigans, and of course, "Evil is our middle name" Oracle, whose corporate ethos of underhanded greed is why we can no longer have nice things.
Oh, and Rocky/Alma aren't RH's "competitors".
Posted Jun 26, 2023 20:29 UTC (Mon)
by richarson (subscriber, #74226)
[Link]
Posted Jul 5, 2023 17:59 UTC (Wed)
by jmalcolm (subscriber, #8876)
[Link] (28 responses)
Some people seem to think that the "loophole" is only providing source to those they directly distribute RHEL to. In my view, that is specifically what the GPL asks you to do. Is "full compliance" the loophole? Not only that, Red Hat actually goes beyond the requirements of the GPL and provides full source to the world at large via CentOS Stream.
Is the loophole that they enforce contract terms above and beyond the license? I guess I can understand that argument but it just seems very straightforward to me that copyright licenses, trademark licenses, patent licenses, and contracts are all different things that can be managed via individual agreements. Having any one of these agreements individually does nothing to imply the others. For example, getting a Red Hat authored package via the GPL license does not entitle you to support from Red Hat unless you have a contract with them ( even though they may have such agreements in place with others ).
Is the loophole that Red Hat is not offering the entirety of RHEL via the GPL? That is obviously not possible as RHEL is made up of a great many individual components made available a number of licenses ( the GPL being only one ). Also, the GPL itself states quite clearly that an "aggregate" that includes a GPL "covered work" is not in any way itself bound by the GPL. So that cannot be the loophole.
So what is the loophole? Or is it one of the above and I just do not understand specifically what makes the situation so intolerable?
For purely optics reasons I was not in favour of this move. Honestly though, the reaction has caused me to side quite firmly with Red Hat. I have not seen a single justification for why CentOS is not good enough and EXACTLY the RHEL packages have to be available that does not boil down to somebody else wanting to make money off RHEL without paying. It seems that it is the "community" that is focused on free as in beer here and not free as in freedom. Making the copycat distributions work a little harder and making it a little harder to claim absolutely that you are identical to RHEL does not sound like a bad thing at all.
Posted Jul 5, 2023 19:02 UTC (Wed)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (27 responses)
The authors of GPL software believe that all recipients of that software should be able exercise the Four Freedoms.
Red Hat is shipping GPL software; their entire business is predicated on it.
The recipients of that software get source code. But they cannot exercise the Four Freedoms (specifically Freedom 2) without losing access to the software. Because this can mean loss of livelihood or other serious consequences, _in effect_ they are prevented from exercising Freedom 2, even if _legally_ they are allowed (that is, no one will sue them if they do).
Red Hat is saying "we have agreed to a license (GPL) which requires us to allow you to do X, but if you actually do X that we are required to allow you to do then we'll stop doing business with you". There is an argument to be made about whether that complies with the GPL but even if it does, it's certainly reasonable to believe that what they're doing is against the spirit and intent of F/OSS. And that upsets people.
You can say "well, CentOS is almost the same" which may be true, but it's beside the point: the GPL talks about the actual source, not "almost the same" source. You can say "well, people are cheating RH by taking their work and redistributing it without giving back themselves" and that's true, and very unfortunate, and I can sympathize with them about that. But that's also beside the point of the argument being made above.
Posted Jul 5, 2023 19:39 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (3 responses)
That should read: "...without losing access to FUTURE releases that Red Hat might create."
Under no scenario do they lose access [1] to the software they've already obtained. Nor do they lose access to the complete corresponding source code to this software; if their access to RH systems is cut off -- according to the written offer, RH will supply the complete corresponding source code to your current binaries for $5.
[1] They can't download _new_ copies of said software from Red Hat, but the copies they already have remain fully accessible and functional.
Posted Jul 5, 2023 21:21 UTC (Wed)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (2 responses)
Yes, correct. I guess I thought that was clear from the context but maybe not. You can fully exercise your Freedom 2, as they must allow, for the software you already have... anything else would be a _clear_ violation of the GPL. However you can only do so under threat that your business may no longer be viable in the future (if you require a Red Hat support contract, which many places do require for various reasons).
Posted Jul 5, 2023 22:46 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (1 responses)
There's nothing that forces you to redistribute GPL software you've received; it's just that you can, if you choose to. And similarly, you can choose not to, for any reason whatsoever.
"I choose to not do X because I get something more valuable in exchange" is not only perfectly legal, but is IMO the fundamental underpinning of all human societies.
Posted Jul 6, 2023 1:04 UTC (Thu)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link]
The reason Red Hat is in a position to make their product in the first place is that they have used work that I (the copyright holder) produced, and I allowed them to redistribute it with the understanding that they would not restrict the freedoms of others that they distributed it to. If the others want to take advantage of the freedoms that I intended them to have, and Red Hat won't allow them to do that without inflicting some harm on them as punishment for exercising that freedom, then they are abrogating that agreement: maybe not according to the courts (we don't know) but certainly morally. If they didn't want to be held to that standard then they should not have made the agreement with me (by using my work). Of course RH is not obligated to support anyone, and they can stop offering support for all sorts of reasons. If their support contract says they won't support anyone who wears loafers without socks, fine with me. But if it says that they will cancel the contract if someone exercises the freedoms they agreed to allow when they redistributed my software, that's a completely different thing and I have to suspect that difference is obvious to everyone. I certainly have no problem with Red Hat restricting the redistribution of non-copyleft software (things under the MIT / BSD license for example). In fact they should absolutely do that if they want to; the copyright holders of that software explicitly said they should feel free to do it. But at least some of us who provide GPL'd software have what I think are clear expectations in return for making it available and in my opinion Red Hat isn't meeting those expectations any longer. Anyway I have no interest in getting into a lengthy back and forth which will no doubt descend ultimately into Godwin's law. The question was asked Honestly, I am asking hoping that somebody with a different perspective can explain to me as I feel like I must not understand and taking that at face value, I've provided an honest explanation to the best of my ability. You may not agree with it but hopefully you understand it, just as I understand your argument... and don't agree with it.
Posted Jul 5, 2023 19:41 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
The problem with that, as I see it, is that the people making this argument are missing one FUNDAMENTAL point. They are telling me that I am NOT ALLOWED TO EXERCISE FREEDOM OF CHOICE, which to me is FAR more important than the Four Freedoms.
Okay, as an individual, Freedom 2 is important to me. But as a company not in the software business, Freedom 2 is much less important than staying alive. In fact, Freedom 2 is pretty much worthless! If I can trade that for something I value, like a support contract, there's simply no valid argument not to.
Why should I act in THEIR best interests, rather than my own?
Cheers,
Posted Jul 5, 2023 20:03 UTC (Wed)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link] (21 responses)
And one difficulty with this argument is that Red Hat doesm't say "if you actually do X that we are required to allow you to do then we'll stop doing business with you"; they say "if you do X in a way that lets someone without a Red Hat subscription get the benefit of that subscription, we'll stop doing business with you after a 30 day notice period expires".
In turn, that means that a lot of distribution of Red Hat Enterprise Linux packages isn't going to trigger Red Hat into cutting you off - giving just one to a consultancy so that they can fix it, or sharing source with someone who already has their own Red Hat subscription agreement isn't going to trigger Red Hat cutting you off.
Whether this is, or isn't in the spirit and intent of F/OSS is a different question, but it's not nearly as cut-and-dried as "if you distribute any RHEL SRPMs, you will immediately lose access to RHEL".
Posted Jul 5, 2023 21:35 UTC (Wed)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (18 responses)
I'm sorry, but this is a distinction without a difference (IMO). Either you have Freedom 2, or you don't. If you have to query the recipient's status to determine if they're allowed to receive the source before you give it to them, otherwise "Consequences", then that's no different _in effect_ than any other proprietary software you happen to have access to the source code for. You are punished for exercising your freedoms that the the software author wanted and expected you to have... "sometimes, with the people we (Red Hat) don't approve of". The punishment won't involve being taken to court but it is there and it can certainly have severe impacts.
Posted Jul 5, 2023 22:52 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
Um, if I supply _any_ software to folks in certain countries, I can get thrown in jail. Legally, I'm responsible for making sure that anyone I do business with isn't on one of several "naughty" lists.
By your logic, I therefore don't have Freedom 2 at all.
Posted Jul 6, 2023 9:55 UTC (Thu)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link] (16 responses)
Then no-one in the USA has Freedom 2. Supplying software to people on the USA's sanctions list (such as Vladimir Putin) is a criminal offence, and you must, by law, query the recipient's status to make sure that they're not a front for someone on the sanctions list. Similar rules apply in most European countries, although the sanctions list differs - and of course, China and India have their own variations on this theme.
Further, because it's "the benefit of a subscription" that matters, and not the sharing of source, you could well find that sharing just the exact versions of all RPMs in RHEL 9.5 triggers the clause, while sharing the complete kernel source from the version of RHEL you're using on a system does not.
Posted Jul 7, 2023 18:20 UTC (Fri)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (15 responses)
Or are you just trying to score a point by showing that I didn't take into account completely irrelevant things in the text of my reply, and instead of "you either have it or you don't" I should have explicitly said "Red Hat either allows it or they don't"? I wouldn't think that this was needed if we're engaged in a good-faith discussion as everyone understood what I meant, and also did not mean, but anyway congratulations you got a point.
Posted Jul 7, 2023 18:32 UTC (Fri)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (1 responses)
To quote you own words, this is a "distinction without a difference. Either you have Freedom 2, or you do not."
Posted Jul 8, 2023 12:45 UTC (Sat)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link]
Posted Jul 7, 2023 20:25 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
You're basically placing your freedoms - specifically Freedom 2 - over and above other peoples' freedoms, specifically their Freedom Of Association and Freedom Of Choice.
Cheers,
Posted Jul 7, 2023 21:27 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
You do not have the right to demand others work for you. That's called Slavery. I thought you fought a war to abolish it.
(And if Red Hat's work isn't worth having, why are you demanding they work for you?)
Cheers,
Posted Jul 10, 2023 15:23 UTC (Mon)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link] (10 responses)
First, you can exercise your Freedom 2 right. That's not in doubt - the worst case is that Red Hat will decide that they won't do business with you in future. You can also find that Red Hat go down the same route without you ever exercising your Freedom 2 right - for example, just sharing all the binary RPMs will do that, or even a version list so that someone else can reconstruct a bug-for-bug RHEL from CentOS Stream sources.
But this isn't the only reason for Red Hat to decide not to do business with you - they could decide to not do business with you because your bank is being problematic about transferring payments to them. Or because they have reason to believe that you're a front for a sanctioned entity, and they legally cannot do business with you. Or even because they've decided that entities of your type are not profitable customers. They could also refuse to do business with you because you've got an employee who's suing IBM, or because they think you're likely to be a competitor of theirs.
So, the underlying question to answer: when is it OK for Red Hat to refuse to do business with you in future, and when is it not OK? What is the principle that I can apply to split out "Red Hat is punishing people" from "Red Hat is just exercising its right to Freedom of Association"?
Posted Jul 10, 2023 16:56 UTC (Mon)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (9 responses)
I believe I've always been careful to qualify this as "without being punished". If I forgot this in some material place I apologize. I fully agree that RH is not saying they will sue you for copyright or license violation if you redistribute.
> So, the underlying question to answer: when is it OK for Red Hat to refuse to do business with you in future, and when is it not OK? What is the principle that I can apply to split out "Red Hat is punishing people" from "Red Hat is just exercising its right to Freedom of Association"?
I already discussed this. We don't have to treat all reasons as equivalent, such that if one reason is OK then all reasons are OK, or if one reason is not OK then no reasons are OK. All reasons are not the same!
The principle you are looking to apply is the license. RH is redistributing software published under the GPL, which contains a clause saying you cannot add "further restrictions" to downstream recipients' use of the software. So, what makes this different from general free association such as the color of socks, bank problems, or not being profitable, is that by distributing the GPL'd software they are agreeing to the terms of the GPL and the GPL has requirements about allowing downstream distribution, while it doesn't say anything about those other things.
In other words, once RH decided to do business with you notwithstanding the color of your socks, the question is can they decide to STOP doing business with you SOLELY because you exercised your GPL rights (not for other reasons, but for THAT reason)?
Whether the support contract clause really constitutes "further restrictions" in a legal sense is up to the lawyers, and whether it is ethically OK is of course up for debate (clearly). But again I entered this thread to explain to people who couldn't understand why there was pushback, exactly what the problem is. I have hopefully done that.
Posted Jul 10, 2023 17:12 UTC (Mon)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link] (6 responses)
And I don't think your "without being punished" qualification is useful. You are "punishing" me in the same way by not doing business with me that I want to do, on the terms I want to do business. LWN is "punishing" me by refusing to let me continue my subscription for free, when I don't want to pay them.
Your principle is one that Red Hat already complies with - they do not refuse to do business with you SOLELY for exercising freedom 2, but specifically for using your subscription so that someone else benefits from a Red Hat subscription without having their own subscription.
And no, you've failed to explain why there's pushback, because you're addressing the wrong thing - RH have already promised that you can exercise your Freedom 2 rights per the GPLv2 without any impact on your RH subscription; what you can't do is use your RH subscription (source, binary or other data) to give someone else the benefit of an RH subscription. So, for example, if I took the kernel source from a RHEL subscription and sent it to my friend to help me debug an issue on my RHEL box, that'd be fine. If I sent it over to CQI so that they could use it to address customer issues that are already known to be fixed by RH, that wouldn't be fine.
This nuance is the thing that nobody is addressing - the deal on offer is that if you choose to compete with Red Hat, they will stop dealing with you in future. They'll still comply with the licence, they'll still let you distribute what you have from them - they just won't do business with you in future. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why Red Hat must continue to do business with someone they see as competition, given that RH don't care about you exercising your GPL rights at all if you're not aiming to compete with RH.
Posted Jul 12, 2023 13:06 UTC (Wed)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (5 responses)
I've already said this is not compliance IMO (although somehow that turned into a totally irrelevant side-discussion about sending software to Putin or North Korea).
The theory under test is that if you don't redistribute the source, or redistribute to only certain people or in certain ways, RH will continue support you. If you do redistribute the source to certain other people, or in certain other ways, they will stop supporting you. The response is that this is against the intent, at least, of the GPL; I will leave the legalities up to others. The GPL (famously) doesn't allow you to make any sort of distinction based on the uses that the software will be put to: you either provide source and you don't restrict them from redistributing it, or you can't distribute at all.
> And no, you've failed to explain why there's pushback, because you're addressing the wrong thing - RH have already promised that you can exercise your Freedom 2 rights per the GPLv2 without any impact on your RH subscription; what you can't do is use your RH subscription (source, binary or other data) to give someone else the benefit of an RH subscription.
Making that kind of distinction, as to what the user is or is not allowed to do with the source and who they are or are not allowed to redistribute it to, is not allowed by the GPL. "No further restrictions" means "no further restrictions". No asterisk.
In every way, the exact point of the GPL is exactly to ensure that "someone else" can get the benefit of the source code. That's the ENTIRE REASON the license exists. If you don't agree with that you should not be distributing GPL'd software.
> I'm still waiting for someone to explain why Red Hat must continue to do business with someone they see as competition, given that RH don't care about you exercising your GPL rights at all if you're not aiming to compete with RH.
If Red Hat decides whether or not to renew support based on some other criteria that has nothing to do with redistributing source code, that would be fine. For example if they don't provide support to ANY Linux vendor, regardless of whether that customer redistributed Red Hat source to anyone ever, I have no problem with that.
But if they provide a support contract then disallow it, and the material difference between users who are allowed to keep their support contract and those who are not is whether or not they take advantage of Freedom 2 with source code they got from Red Hat in a way that Red Hat doesn't approve of, then this is against the intent, at least, of the "no further restrictions" clause.
Posted Jul 12, 2023 13:37 UTC (Wed)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
“No further restrictions” means you don't get to impose further conditions, on top of what the GPL stipulates, on redistribution of the GPL code. E.g., no redistribution on Sundays, or no redistribution to people south of the equator.
But this is not what Red Hat does. Red Hat doesn't restrict the redistribution of GPL sources that you obtained from Red Hat. Red Hat simply reserves the right, in its own service contract that is completely separate from the GPL, to stop providing services to you under that contract you if you do things that are deemed by Red Hat to be detrimental to Red Hat's business, including using Red Hat 's published source code to offer a competing Linux distribution that is identical to RHEL in all respects except it isn't called RHEL, or otherwise let people take advantage of your Red Hat subscription who don't pay for a Red Hat subscription of their own.
IOW, as long as you deal responsibly with GPL source code from RHEL, including redistribution, Red Hat isn't likely to go after you for breach of contract. They would presumably much rather keep you as a paying customer than kick you out. It's only when you go into active competition with them for market share, based on their own product, that they will take steps to prevent that, which is basically what any business would do, so it's really hard to fault them for that.
Posted Jul 12, 2023 13:52 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
The GPL *DOES*, however, EXPLICITLY allow charging for support, iirc. So if you help people dodge paying, you are acting *against* the explicit intent of the GPL (else why would it mention it?).
Cheers,
Posted Jul 12, 2023 14:54 UTC (Wed)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
But, importantly, Red Hat aren't restricting your ability to redistribute the GPLv2 software. Go nuts, do it - no matter what you do, you will not have restrictions placed on your ability to redistribute GPLv2 software. Indeed, Red Hat will even supply you the sources you need to do that distribution if you got a binary from them - even if you're not longer a Red Hat customer.
What Red Hat are restricting is your future ability to do business with Red Hat if they think that you're abusing the business terms they asked you to agree to. You have no restrictions at all on your redistribution of Red Hat Enterprise Linux - you can redistribute freely; what you cannot do is demand that Red Hat continue to distribute future versions to you in the future if they choose not to.
Further, Red Hat offer RHEL under GPLv2 3b terms - a written offer. You can continue to get the sources for the latest version of RHEL by taking up Red Hat's written offer, even if they won't let you have a subscription; it's just that you lose access to the Red Hat Knowledge Base, and Red Hat stop pushing updates on you, if they choose to no longer do business with you.
Posted Jul 12, 2023 15:02 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
No, the point isn't to ensure that "someone else" gets the benefit of the source code.
The point is to ensure that *the recipient of the software* gets the (full) benefit of the source code.
Nothing in the GPL *forces* the recipient to redistribute it, much less to random third parties. It only says that *IF* they choose to redistribute it, they also pass along the source code (via one of several enumerated methods), with no (additional) restrictions beyond what the GPL allows.
And the GPL does allow for some restrictions; eg with respect to trademark/branding, and crucially to this kerfuffle, support -- The GPL makes it quite clear that support/service/updates lie outside the scope of the GPL, and explicitly states that the mere act of supplying sources is sufficient reason to terminate any support/service agreements, and stop providing further updates.
Posted Jul 12, 2023 16:32 UTC (Wed)
by kleptog (subscriber, #1183)
[Link]
> Making that kind of distinction, as to what the user is or is not allowed to do with the source and who they are or are not allowed to redistribute it to, is not allowed by the GPL. "No further restrictions" means "no further restrictions". No asterisk.
IANAL but doing some research, the distinction between "restriction" and mere "contractual terms" depends on the severity of the penalty, and in most jurisdictions withdrawing service not considered severe because businesses are generally not obliged to continue service anyway. So asterisk or not, it's not so black and white. Elsewhere the word "imposed" is similar, implying something that cannot be negotiated away.
And frankly, the idea that a sentence in a copyright licence could constrain the agreement between two businesses (ie RedHat and a customer) just doesn't pass the smell test. Nowhere in the GPL does it say you can't voluntarily give up some rights in exchange for something else. As long as the conditions only apply to the parties in the contract and are not extreme, all is fine. If the GPL had intended to override standard contract law rights, it should have said so explicitly.
I suppose while it feels like the intent of the GPL was to give people a stick to beat businesses with, the stick is not of unlimited power.
Posted Jul 11, 2023 8:49 UTC (Tue)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jul 11, 2023 9:06 UTC (Tue)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
Here's the rub - Red Hat will not engage in a retaliatory, punitive act specifically for exercising their GPL rights to redistribute. You share code with me (and I don't have an RH subscription), and that's fine, because any reason you have to do so is not to give me "the benefit of your Red Hat subscription".
This is the framing used initially, as far as I can find, by CQI, who sell support for a RHEL rebuild - they've framed it this way because their business model is giving other people the benefit of a Red Hat subscription for a lower price, and by saying that they'll cut you off for doing that (which includes - for example - sharing the list of binary RPM versions available in a given RHEL point release), they've made CQI's business model that bit less tenable.
Posted Jul 14, 2023 13:14 UTC (Fri)
by lproven (guest, #110432)
[Link] (1 responses)
[[Citation needed]]
Not because I am doubting you. I'm not. But I wrote about this, and even got cited by the SFC, and subsequently people are asking me on Twitter for specific chapter & verse from RH EULAs or similar documents, and I don't have them.
I was merely reporting on the conversations I have seen lots of people having online -- including here.
Posted Jul 14, 2023 13:24 UTC (Fri)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
It's in the Software and Support Subscription Agreement, section 1 (Use of Subscription Services) (specifically in 1.2 (g) through 1.4), as combined with the baseline Enterprise Agreement section 4 (termination).
Posted Jun 25, 2023 19:32 UTC (Sun)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Because those competitors are freeloading on RH's work, and the alternative for RH is going bust?
As others have pointed out, the target of all these shenanigans is Oracle, who are doing their best to ship (and take money for) an exact copy of RHEL.
Most competitors (SUSE, Debian, Canonical et al) put in a decent amount of engineering work themselves. Red Hat benefits from their work as much as they benefit from Red Hat.
Remember what I said about "the warm fuzzies". Red Hat may not appreciate the co-opetitian from the likes of SUSE and Canonical, but they play fair.
Oracle have not only the will, but the desire AND RESOURCES to use Red Hat's own work as a weapon against them. That's pretty much the definition of a parasite. What do you want Red Hat to do? File for bankruptcy?
Cheers,
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
Wol
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
By which I clearly and obviously meant "either Red Hat allows Freedom 2, or it does not", as I said in my reply but you cut out. It makes no sense to blame Red Hat for the government's restrictions and no one would realistically think I meant that. But, fine, you also win a point for parsing the text to find a place where it doesn't explicitly disavow the most extreme and ridiculous positions. Congratulations.
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
Wol
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
Wol
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
But if they provide a support contract then disallow it, and the material difference between users who are allowed to keep their support contract and those who are not is whether or not they take advantage of Freedom 2 with source code they got from Red Hat in a way that Red Hat doesn't approve of, then this is against the intent, at least, of the "no further restrictions" clause.
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
Wol
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change
Wol