I like the meme but the most hilarious aspect of the saga to me is still that Oracle got out on a stage and with a straight face proclaimed that they are the bastion of openness for freeloading RHEL source code to make Oracle Linux. That shit never gets old.
I have no love for oracle, but in general the only freeloaders in FOSS development are companies that use the work of a whole ecosystem of unpaid developers and then use loopholes to restrict access.
“Lazy clones” are vital to maintaining the interoperability and openness that make RHEL (or any other corporate distro) attractive and keep them accountable for anticonsumer practices, preventing enshittification. Only when the company starts actively harming their product, or trust is lost, will clones hurt sales.
If they want a proprietary OS, they can build it themselves. The value proposition has always been in the support and service ecosystem and infrastructure provided by the corporation. Only when the company starts actively harming their product, or trust is lost, will clones hurt Red Hat’s business.
My university uses Rocky. If it didn’t exist, they would probably just use debian. Because it does exist, hundreds of students will be exposed to and learn to use enterprise linux, and will likely contribute to its corporate user base at companies that require RHEL.
If they kill clones, they are killing the on-ramp and ecosystem that makes their paid offerings so dominant. Students will learn something else, developers would deprioritize rpm, making their paid products less attractive.
I have no love for oracle, but in general the only freeloaders in FOSS development are companies that use the work of a whole ecosystem of unpaid developers
So basically all those who used CentOS and did not contribute anything even though CentOS cried for contributions for years until Red Hat eventually bought them? (=Most notably Oracle.)
Red Hat is still the biggest FOSS contributor. (I use openSUSE and SteamOS, btw, so I’m not even a RH product user.)
and then use loopholes to restrict access.
It’s really not a loophole. The GPL spells it out directly that the source code is only mandatory to be offered to those who get the binaries. A loophole is networked execution that was not even thought about when the original GPL was written and then was “closed” by the AGPL and later intended to be left open by the GPLv3.
If they kill clones, they are killing the on-ramp and ecosystem that makes their paid offerings so dominant. Students will learn something else, developers would deprioritize rpm, making their paid products less attractive.
Those actions seem to have lead to creating that new OpenELA organization, basically to what CentOS wanted for years but their cries fell on deaf ears. Simply reusing Red Hat’s source RPMs isn’t an open ecosystem. All the EL downstreams finally collaborating is.
So basically all those who used CentOS and did not contribute anything even though CentOS cried for contributions for years until Red Hat eventually bought them? (=Most notably Oracle.)
Not contributing is not necessarily freeloaders. Users have no obligation. That’s the point of open source. Only building off of open code and the closing yours off is freeloading.
Oracle and others used the source code and publish their distro’s source. Oracle not contributing is jerky, sure, but for them to be freeloaders they would have to use enterprise linux as a basis for a pay walled proprietary or restricted source OS. Correct me if I’m wrong, but their business model is using Oracle Linux in their cloud offerings.
Red Hat is still the biggest FOSS contributor. (I use openSUSE and SteamOS, btw, so I’m not even a RH product user.)
Hell, I use Fedora, so anything I contribute to is upstream of RHEL. I’m not saying RH socks. There are a lot of great people they employ and their business has been a huge positive for FOSS. But those (great) achievements were and are premised on community collaboration, and it’s more than fair to raise a stink about it.
It’s really not a loophole.
You’re right about GPL. I have nothing against paid software. I was more describing the broader enterprise linux ecosystem. That is to say, RHEL’s success is based on making it an open standard. The greater community can contribute either directly to the upstream or to the application ecosystem, with the understanding their work is applicable to the FOSS community. Closing the downstream is a loophole out of this system where they get to profit. It’s a bait and switch.
Simply reusing Red Hat’s source RPMs isn’t an open ecosystem. All the EL downstreams finally collaborating is.
“Ecosystem” wasn’t referring to the existence of clone distros but the development and adoption of enterprise linux they enable(d). The ecosystem is not only those directly contributing to enterprise linux but the developers targeting enterprise linux and the (IT/CS) user base familiarizing itself with enterprise linux.
The market for a RHEL clone is not the market for RHEL enterprise solutions. As I said above, free availability of clones gets people into the ecosystem, and on the corporate end, as long as RH’s offerings aren’t enshittified, Red Hat converts these people into customers. It should be a win-win, but short-term profit maximization will hurt its trust and future growth.
Not contributing is not necessarily freeloaders. Users have no obligation. That’s the point of open source. Only building off of open code and the closing yours off is freeloading.
Cambridge dictionary seems to disagree:
Describes pretty much what Oracle did for years. Now they are contributing to OpenELA, so in a weird turn of events the overall situation got better after a short period of uncertainty.
Hey, we are all freeloaders here. How many of us can say they’ve contributed to every single component of the stack we use everyday to get our cat memes? Like GRUB, the kernel, systemd/whatever you prefer, Mesa, X.Org/Wayland, your DE of choice, Firefox?
I get your point, but this definition applies to all users of FOSS software who do not actively contribute to its development. Purpose is a consideration here; I am freeloading if I use netflix’s service through loopholes or piracy when it is intended for paid customers, but am I freeloading if I, a non developer and a student not in a position to donate, use libreoffice?
By this definition, I clearly am a freeloader. But it is clearly intended for use by the general public.
For RHEL, there is more ambiguity, because although they sell it at cost, it is still based in an open source ecosystem. I understand how using rhel binaries without becoming a paying customer could be seen as freeloading, but the crucial difference is the intent of an open ecosystem and standard. RHEL establishes itself as a standard, and that means it’s work will be used, not just contributed to. By closing it off, they are cutting off that standard.
Compare this to standards like USB or audio codecs. A powerful company or consortium may create an open standard and use it in their paid offerings, but others using it aren’t freeloaders, even if they compete with said offerings. They’re intended (or expected) users.
Sorry if I’m not making much sense. I’m only commenting because I find this interesting, not angry keyboard warring.
I like the meme but the most hilarious aspect of the saga to me is still that Oracle got out on a stage and with a straight face proclaimed that they are the bastion of openness for freeloading RHEL source code to make Oracle Linux. That shit never gets old.
I have no love for oracle, but in general the only freeloaders in FOSS development are companies that use the work of a whole ecosystem of unpaid developers and then use loopholes to restrict access.
“Lazy clones” are vital to maintaining the interoperability and openness that make RHEL (or any other corporate distro) attractive and keep them accountable for anticonsumer practices, preventing enshittification. Only when the company starts actively harming their product, or trust is lost, will clones hurt sales.
If they want a proprietary OS, they can build it themselves. The value proposition has always been in the support and service ecosystem and infrastructure provided by the corporation. Only when the company starts actively harming their product, or trust is lost, will clones hurt Red Hat’s business.
My university uses Rocky. If it didn’t exist, they would probably just use debian. Because it does exist, hundreds of students will be exposed to and learn to use enterprise linux, and will likely contribute to its corporate user base at companies that require RHEL.
If they kill clones, they are killing the on-ramp and ecosystem that makes their paid offerings so dominant. Students will learn something else, developers would deprioritize rpm, making their paid products less attractive.
So basically all those who used CentOS and did not contribute anything even though CentOS cried for contributions for years until Red Hat eventually bought them? (=Most notably Oracle.)
Red Hat is still the biggest FOSS contributor. (I use openSUSE and SteamOS, btw, so I’m not even a RH product user.)
It’s really not a loophole. The GPL spells it out directly that the source code is only mandatory to be offered to those who get the binaries. A loophole is networked execution that was not even thought about when the original GPL was written and then was “closed” by the AGPL and later intended to be left open by the GPLv3.
Those actions seem to have lead to creating that new OpenELA organization, basically to what CentOS wanted for years but their cries fell on deaf ears. Simply reusing Red Hat’s source RPMs isn’t an open ecosystem. All the EL downstreams finally collaborating is.
Not contributing is not necessarily freeloaders. Users have no obligation. That’s the point of open source. Only building off of open code and the closing yours off is freeloading.
Oracle and others used the source code and publish their distro’s source. Oracle not contributing is jerky, sure, but for them to be freeloaders they would have to use enterprise linux as a basis for a pay walled proprietary or restricted source OS. Correct me if I’m wrong, but their business model is using Oracle Linux in their cloud offerings.
Hell, I use Fedora, so anything I contribute to is upstream of RHEL. I’m not saying RH socks. There are a lot of great people they employ and their business has been a huge positive for FOSS. But those (great) achievements were and are premised on community collaboration, and it’s more than fair to raise a stink about it.
You’re right about GPL. I have nothing against paid software. I was more describing the broader enterprise linux ecosystem. That is to say, RHEL’s success is based on making it an open standard. The greater community can contribute either directly to the upstream or to the application ecosystem, with the understanding their work is applicable to the FOSS community. Closing the downstream is a loophole out of this system where they get to profit. It’s a bait and switch.
“Ecosystem” wasn’t referring to the existence of clone distros but the development and adoption of enterprise linux they enable(d). The ecosystem is not only those directly contributing to enterprise linux but the developers targeting enterprise linux and the (IT/CS) user base familiarizing itself with enterprise linux. The market for a RHEL clone is not the market for RHEL enterprise solutions. As I said above, free availability of clones gets people into the ecosystem, and on the corporate end, as long as RH’s offerings aren’t enshittified, Red Hat converts these people into customers. It should be a win-win, but short-term profit maximization will hurt its trust and future growth.
Cambridge dictionary seems to disagree:
Describes pretty much what Oracle did for years. Now they are contributing to OpenELA, so in a weird turn of events the overall situation got better after a short period of uncertainty.
Hey, we are all freeloaders here. How many of us can say they’ve contributed to every single component of the stack we use everyday to get our cat memes? Like GRUB, the kernel, systemd/whatever you prefer, Mesa, X.Org/Wayland, your DE of choice, Firefox?
We can even make a profit by using these tools :D
Speak for yourself. I’ve paid for FOSS to support development on multiple occasions.
I’m glad you do. I want to start contributing and donating too. But I do think the definition of freeloader is a bit adjusted for FOSS software.
I get your point, but this definition applies to all users of FOSS software who do not actively contribute to its development. Purpose is a consideration here; I am freeloading if I use netflix’s service through loopholes or piracy when it is intended for paid customers, but am I freeloading if I, a non developer and a student not in a position to donate, use libreoffice? By this definition, I clearly am a freeloader. But it is clearly intended for use by the general public.
For RHEL, there is more ambiguity, because although they sell it at cost, it is still based in an open source ecosystem. I understand how using rhel binaries without becoming a paying customer could be seen as freeloading, but the crucial difference is the intent of an open ecosystem and standard. RHEL establishes itself as a standard, and that means it’s work will be used, not just contributed to. By closing it off, they are cutting off that standard.
Compare this to standards like USB or audio codecs. A powerful company or consortium may create an open standard and use it in their paid offerings, but others using it aren’t freeloaders, even if they compete with said offerings. They’re intended (or expected) users.
Sorry if I’m not making much sense. I’m only commenting because I find this interesting, not angry keyboard warring.