> Note that if there is an End User License Agreement (EULA) or other terms required to download the software, it is not open source and those terms would have to be reviewed further.
And a Red Hat engineer, upon seeing it, claimed "Red hat enterprise Linux is not an opensource project" [sic] — if so, my perception of reality is blown.
@geerlingguy Sad but not surprised. IBM is the same company that supplied the Nazi's with time stamp machines(and who knows what else)
Oh and Ford supplied engines to the Nazi's and even Coke was still still happily selling to the Nazi's right to the end.
This is who bought Red Hat. Not that RH was innocent. They brought us SELINUX, the NSA authored "security" layer (probably backdoored) and the insecure Flatpaks, and they built the US' spy machine probably.
@geerlingguy Yep. “Red Hat Enterprise” hasn’t been a truly open source project in many years. It’s “enterprise software based on open sources, much of the ensuing product is open source, but with plenty that isn’t” including basically everything that makes it “Red Hat.”
Red hat are just digging a bigger hole for themselves, seemingly every single day.
Saw a blog response from SuSE today that tore Red Hat to shreds over this. In part it was a defensive measure to distance them as a business from the way Red Hat are portraying Linux businesses.
@geerlingguy looks like you never worked in a corporate environment that size. There is no governing, staff or any other connection of a random IBM download site to Red Hat. You underestimate how big IBM is. Also, I really want to know which engineer said that. It's bullshit and everyone knows.
@Fizzblizz Because of the amount of dogpiling that's happened, I don't link to individual tweets if I don't have to — but the user is a Distinguished Engineer at Red Hat.
@geerlingguy they've rarely operated in the spirit of foss, they've used it to leverage a market position but outside the marketing it's been closed for years.
@geerlingguy open source/ foss is just branding to them at this point.
When pressed about violating the spirit of opensource or being jerks to the community they just bring up the companies right to make money or some deliberately skewed version of the free speech vs free beer analogy and label you as complaining.
@gnarkotics@geerlingguy That's an awfully broad paint brush you have there. There are still plenty of people at Red Hat who contribute very useful work outside of Red Hat on Red Hat's dime. This was an unfortunate decision on Red Hat's part, but to say FOSS is just marketing to them misses the point. If that were really true, the larger community wouldn't be so upset by this change.
@vwbusguy exactly, the problem is this whole endeavor runs so counter to the experience many of us have had collaborating with Red Hat employees over the years... we're just gobsmacked.
@geerlingguy@vwbusguy My experience is that if you have dinner with the CEO of a company of a low level employee you will walk away with such a different experience that you’d never think it was the same company.
I’m not hugely invested here (haven’t used anything RH for decades), but I don’t feel what they are doing is in the spirit of open source.
@vwbusguy@geerlingguy letting individuals from a company contribute to opensource projects and explicitly labeling your project as open source are different things.
Rhel explicitly plasters this all over their marketing.
Hell there are probably Microsoft employees that contribute to foss projects. Doesnt make microsoft opensource.
@vwbusguy@geerlingguy you should not be able to have a product derived from foss that functions as proprietary, just because you let employees contribute to foss
@geerlingguy@vwbusguy you may disagree with my tone toward RH as a company but i believe it to be justified. My beef with RH employees only extends to the point they endorse the decisions of the company.
Im not sure how much more doubt i can afford to give the ibm subsidiary given they broke their promise to support centos 8, attempt proprietary practices against gpl, and are being derogatory toward projects that have contributed to their success
@geerlingguy@vwbusguy they are ibm now and if you dont know that company's track record then boy howdy do i have some info for you
Id also settle for rh employees just saying "yeah it sucks, but ibm wants more money" or something to that effect, however i have yet to see that manifest.
My experience has been getting gaslit about potential gpl conflicts with both misrepresented free beer arguments and the our code our rules attitude.
@gnarkotics@vwbusguy I totally understand where you're coming from, and I have to keep muting the little rage monster inside me that can't believe the responses it sees from RH employees defending the decisions.
But trying to keep it slightly higher level feels to me at least like the employees may feel less on the defensive (personally), leading to more fruitful discussion.
@geerlingguy@gnarkotics 100% with you on this. Stepping away from time to time has been almost a spiritual discipline level act when I feel things have gotten too far into the weeds, and yet stepping away has not lessened my resolve on this. If anything, it's emboldened it in hopefully more productive ways. I very much appreciate your continued engagement on this.
Add comment